Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion

quote:

---

Chaetognatha - Arrow worms
Tardigrata - Water Bears
Onychophora - Velvet Worms
Arthopoda - Insects, crustaceans, arachnids etc.
Cephalorhynchs - no common name
Nematoda - Round worms
Nenatophora - Hairworms
Gnathifera - Rotifers
Platyhelminthes - Flat Worms
Brachiozoa - Brachiopods (lamp shells)
Entoprocta - Goblet Worms
Bryozoa - Moss Animals
Nemertea - Ribbon Worms
Mollusca - Clams, squid, octopi etc.
Annelida - Segmented worms
Sipunculoidea - Peanut worms

---

Most of those are not Phyla.

No, you're right. I was getting confused. Sorry.

A View of Life is good, I've just finished reading it myself, but it has two problems as a reference: firstly, it's somewhat outdated ('81, if you have the same edition as me) - many of the discoveries regarding this area are more recent. Secondly, Gould considerably overstates his case regarding Punctuated Equilibrium a notion into which the sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian fits nicely. Finally, the appearance of skeletons occurs more dramatically than the appearance of phyla - probably because of a shift in the pH of the oceans.

Because that assumes a completely unneeded other explaination. It's like saying well, I'm sure the car drove from Leeds to here, but I think it flew from Glasgow to Leeds. Because that describes nothing like what we observe. The designed objects we can observe do not look like the natural organisms we observe, and they certainly don't form heirachies in the same way. In particular, a designed object will tend not to use multiple different solutions to a problem (unless it has multiple designers), yet every cell in your body uses two different forms of DNA encoding. Because it's not true; there are enough similarities between all forms of life to conclude that they all share a common ancestor.And because it's a deeply unsatisfying conclusion. Especially when the extrapolation is so obvious.