Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?

Firstly it should be noted that the quoted sources are known anti-evolutionists. It would be very good to check their contentions against the primary work rather than simply assuming that they are correct.All we can say about Chen from the quoted material is that he seems to be upset that his pet theory is not being accepted. We are in no position to say whether the reasons are bad as Chen claims or whether they are better than he would like to admit. It is highly unlikely that this represents anything worse than the normal conservatism of science - and without evaluating Chen's arguments and the responses we are not evne in a position to say that.The Davidson argument is easier to evaluate, if the soruce is correct. Devidson seems to equate neo-Darwinism with a reliance on point-mutations as a source of variation. So far as I am aware neo-Darwinian theory is quite happy to accept the other known mechanisms of mutation (e.g. duplication, transposition and insertion). Indeed if the argument attributed to Davidson were correct he would be beating a dead horse - evolutionary theory certainly does accept the other known mechanisms of mutation. If neo-Darwinism is dead on these grounds, it died the minute any alternative mechanism of mutation became widely accepted.Thus unless Davidson's argument has been misreported it does not apply to modern evolutionary theory.o

If Chen and his associates claim that the lack of fossils is anything other than a problem of the fossil record then the evidence is against them. The discovery of phsophatised organisms from the period preceding the "explosion", which indicate that the diversification had started well before is strong evidence for that.To explain, phosphatisation is a rare form of fossilisation that is only good for preserving very small organisms. The more usual forms of fossilisation only preserve considerably larger forms. Thus it appears that the early diversification involved organisms too small to be represented in much of the fossil record.You are also wrong about the production of phyla. By the very nature of taxonomy we should expect to see phyla appearing early. Even Linnean taxonomy was based on modern organisms and if the divisions seen are the product of evolution then the most basic divisions should appear early on. It is not that the animals of the Cambrian explosion were so radically different that they would automatically be classified in different phyla if we made no reference to modern life - it is that the differences between them are important to the classification of modern life.More importantly you misrepresent Chen in one crucial respect. He claims that currently accepted theories of evolution cannot explain his observations - but HIS theories can. He is not attacking evolution, he is promoting his own views.

Why should we expect to see large numbers ? As I pointed out in an earlier post these very early bilaterians are so small that they can only be preserved by phosphatisation. This is why they do not show up elsewhere in the fossil record - the more common processes of fossilisation are unable to preserve them.

Again it all comes down to your assumptions on what should be preserved.The fact is that the discovery of early bilaterians validated the predictions of evolutionary scientists and contradicts your ideas. At present there seems no reason to assume that there is any problem beyond the limits of the fossil record.