Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?

The Cambrian explosion entailed as much variety of life as we see today. The idea that it is just "one instance" is laughable. If ToE cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, it is well-nigh useless.

quote:

---

...considering all major phyla appeared at that time.

---

Actually, the genetic evidence seems to point to most major phyla having separated from one another about 500 million years before the Cambian.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

See my Message #3.

Substantiation?

What genetic evidence?

What never happens? Please explain.

What is this, a David Ives play? See message 6.

Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money

Link.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Crash, all major life forms and more creatures than exist today appeared in the Cambrian explosion. To dismiss this as "one instance" is patently absurd.

They are the biggest elements of evolutionary theory, and the easiest to describe. However, plenty of other mechanisms have been discussed on this board. I'm not au fait with them all, but things like horizontal transfer and epigenetics are among them as well as recombination. Not that I'm aware of. If such an argument was used, I imagine it was a simplification. I don't think the claim that microevolution is macroevolution holds particular water...I suspect that this argument is put forward as an illustration that the mechanisms are the same and there isn't a line between them.I don't know which EvC debate you've been reading but that is certainly not the extent of the evidence for macroevolution. I have two threads open that discuss in some way the evidence.

Fascinating, but that's not what I asked for. Did you forget what you were supposed to be supporting?

quote:

---

The Cambrian explosion entailed as much variety of life as we see today.

---

Or am I just wasting my time asking you to support your assertions?

The reason I ask is such analysis must be based on belief that the molecular clock is valid, which seems to me that evos like to employ at times and other times reject.But it doesn't matter. The fact the genetic "evidence" contradicts the fossil evidence is to be expected if ToE models are wrong. The genetic evidence suggests a huge span of time was involved, you claim 500 million years, but the fossil evidence indicates only a 2-3 million year window for all of this to take place, and so the genetic evidence is actually very strong evidence against current evolutionist explanations here.

I think crash you just aren't that aware of how diverse life was at the Cambrian era. You not only had many extinct dinosaurs, but even semi-aquatic mammals.

But you suspect microevolution based on natural selection of mutations and variation cannot explain all the data, right? It cannot explain the macroevolution of the Cambrian explosion, right?Basicaly, if ToE cannot explain the Cambrian explosion, it is useless. Clearly, there is something else involved creating such an explosion of life.