Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?

Randman, you seem to be missing the point. Chen's own findings later falsified the points he was making in your quotes from an earlier year. As the article Jar posted discusses, Bilateria can be found in the fossil record long before the Cambrian - although finding them is a matter of significant technical difficulty, for some of the reasons already discussed.Here's a more recent abstract from Chen et al.:
Science | AAAS

quote:

---

Ten phosphatized specimens of a small (Vernanimalcula guizhouena gen. et sp. nov.) had paired coeloms extending the length of the gut; paired external pits that could be sense organs; bilateral, anterior-posterior organization; a ventrally directed anterior mouth with thick walled pharynx; and a triploblastic structure. The structural complexity is that of an adult rather than a larval form. These fossils provide the first evidence confirming the phylogenetic inference that Bilateria arose well before the Cambrian.

---

Just to drive this point home a little further, Chen et al. make direct reference to this in the abstract to their 2004 article I cited earlier, in which they announced the precambrian find:

quote:

---

These fossils provide the first evidence confirming the phylogenetic inference that Bilateria arose well before the Cambrian.

---

In other words, these fossils confirm a prediction that was based on evolutionary theory. That Chen himself is/was skeptical of the explanatory power of the modern synthesis should add some extra credibility to his find, for those who believe that there is a self-deluded conspiracy afoot.