The Problems with Evolution - Cambrian Explosion

And this took 3 billion years to happen why?

Bingo. Not to mention that, since the first evolution of vision, vision is thought to have evolved about 35 seperate times........and vision is also an irreducibly complex process.So, these facts combined seem to be a pretty good argument for the intelligent design of vision.......doesn't it? Like I said before, I see the Precambrian and Cambrian as examples of evolution without ID and evolution with it, like those old "this is your brain on drugs" commercials from the 80s.

50 million years is nothing, in geographical terms.....

In biological terms, its millions upon millions of generations. But you're right that it's not very long in "geographical" (actually I think you meant "geologic") terms.That's why, in the fossil record, it looks like an "explosion." Geologically, it happened quickly. Biologically, it happened over multiple millions of generations.

Yes, and millions of generations is NOTHING compared to the trillions of generations that went before the CE........

Honestly? Not much changed in the CE, except the body plans of invertebrates. There was less evolution in the millions of years of the CE than in the trillions of generations between the initial pre-biotic replicator and a fully-functioning cell.If there was a scale of complexity, and the first pre-biotic replicating ancestor is a 1, then living things right before the CE are 80, and the sundry intertebrate species arising during the CE are 85, early amniote vertebrates are 95, and mammals are 100.I realize that you disagree, and that you see less difference between the first pre-biotic molecule and a fully-functional cell than between that single-celled organism and multicellular invertebrates. But that's because you're not very well-versed in the complex chemistry of the cell. Of course, this is just a fuzzy estimate, as we really don't have much of a measure of complexity. But there's a lot more that goes on in a cell than goes on between cells.

Apparently, a lot of people disagree, as the aforementioned guy who wrote a whole book trying to explain the CE surely does........how many ecological niches could possibly exist at the cellular level?

Well, the vast, vast majority of life on Earth, by any measure you care to use, is still unicellular. We find unicellular life literally every single place we look.So I'd say there's quite a few ecological niches at that level, yes.

That's because they breed a lot faster than multi-celled life forms, not because there are more ecological niches to be filled at the cellular level.........so, unless you can produce evidence that there are more ecological niches at the cellular level than the multi-cellular level, your hypothesis falls flat.

We find unicellular life in more places than we find multicellular life, including inside of multicellular life.Case closed.

That doesn't mean they fill more ecological niches.......case open. Or closed, rather, because I know you don't have proof to the contrary, or you would have presented it already.

---

"Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes agoI think it's cute that Sidelined changed his quote to be in direct opposition of mine. Internal thought"I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

​

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

​

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets...
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen." The Nicene CreedWinner of the LSS's 2004 Longest Signature Award

We find them in more niches.That can only be because there are more niches avaliable to them than to other forms of life. This isn't that hard, Jason.

One thing that may have helped spur on the CE was the increase of CaCO3 in the Cambrian oceans. Researchers have found evidence for a large spike in calcium content in the seas at that time. The organisms would have had to find a way of handling all that calcium and it's possible shells were a result of that. I don't think that alone would do it, but perhaps in association with other happening on earth...Note: If I could find some online literature I would post it, however, I have not been able to find anything yet.

Because we find them in DIFFERENT niches doesn't mean we find them in MORE niches.......there are also clearly niches that are multi-cell exclusive, as well.

Uh, no, there aren't. I guarantee that there is no place you would find multi-cell life that you wouldn't find unicellular life.