scientific theories taught as factual

No one is going to "prove" that. It is however the very most reasonable conclusion to draw from the current evidence.The evidence is three million years ago there were none of "us" around. There were however critters like Lucy who had some characteristics in common with us.Since the evidence also show how we fit in very, very well with all modern life the mostest bestest conclusion is that we had someone around then as our great... great grandparents. We can judge from what evidence we do have now that some millions of years before Lucy there was nothing around that was as close to us in form.Lucy is therefore the most reasonable candidate we have right now for a representative of those grandparents. There is absolutely nothing about her that precludes her as one. If you think there is you'll have to produce whatever it is that precludes her.Not only do we have those characteristics that tie her to us but we have subsequent evidence that shows later forms that are closer yet to us. Since they had to have ancestors too Lucy is a good candidate to represent those ancestors. Those later forms, being yet more like us, are even better candidates to be not-quite-so-many-greats grandparents of us. Again there is nothing to preclude them from that role (and in fact less than Lucy).Whatcha got? Anything other than you don't like the idea?You weren't ask to prove that she is or isn't our ancestor. You were asked to show that she could not be. Whatcha got?Edited by NosyNed, : add a bit

Then what was your ancestor at that time?

Do you have parents?

Utterly wrong of course. You may think this because you know little about the scientific facts.

Well, since none of the sources give what he actually wrote but only a newspaper article about what he wrote it is hard to be sure of what he said isn't it?He either meant a moment of some tens of millions of years or he had it wrong. The "explosion" may have stretched for as long as 60 million years (which corresponds to the time back to the extinction of the dinosaurs) or as short as 20 some.The creatures referred to in the Cambrian were about like current worms, shrimp and more worms (with a couple of bigger ones tossed in). We can't tell (because of lack of real source) what Chen was on about but the articles are hyping something that is not right.How about something a bit solider?

S.O.P. -- willful ignorance. Another write off.

Well, guess what: it isn't taught that way. (unless it is being taught very wrongly). Of course, the fact that you know pretty much nothing about it doesn't deter you from making pronouncements.

Yes it is wrong. In fact I don't recall you making one single post about the evolutionary model that isn't wrong.The rest of your post seems to be quoting yourself and then your answer is wrong again. The millions of pairs simultaneously bit is just as utterly wrong.Populations evolve. There is not need to a new species to arise all at once as one new breeding pair or as millions of them.Your grasp is so thin that we'd have to back up and spend many many posts explaining the process to you.However, you show no inclination to read carefully and reflect. I think you are another one who isn't going to learn anything from these discussions.

Those whom you are quoting are wrong. I think you have a nearly perfect record of having nothing right in any of your posts.

There is nothing wrong with the statements except they are about the natural history of the planet and not anything about the evolutionary model. lolYou still haven't a clue. Sorry, ICANT, I won't waste your time or mine by continuing a conversation when I am unwilling to give you the step by step education you need. Others here seem to be more willing to try.