I showed where soft-bodied creatures are found in abundance in phosphates.
What don't you get about that?
personally, i don't get the part where you don't understand that hard parts decompose slower than soft parts, and are thus more easily and frequently fossilized.
i also don't get how the presence of a few of the rarer soft-tissue fossils appearing precambrian, in the logical steps before hard bones, proves that the cambrian explosion was somehow magical. if it was, shouldn't we expect to never, ever find a single fossil without bones precambrian?
don't get me wrong. i really don't understand the point you're trying to make here, using the very evidence that proves you wrong. i can't make any logical sense out of how the presence of counterexamples proves the rule.
™ Version 4.2
