The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence for Creationism

The Cambrian explosion, As you quoted, Did not actually indicate the true start of metazoans. You see, We consider the Cambrian explosion as having started 541 million years ago, Itself lasting 20-25 million years. But before that, 610 million years ago, We have evidences of Aspidella disks. Hence, It is not right to expect that all species started off with such a relatively short phenomenon. You see, Your argument focusses on what occurred during the Cambrian explosion - it doesn't really focus on diversification. This ground fact is what leads to the evolutionary theory's accuracy. The Cambrian explosion has been explained - I thank you for bringing up this topic which has no doubt educated me as well, But it is not like this has not been asked before. Anyhow, With such a preface, Allow me to start. The first ever Cambrian fossils were trilobites, After which many speculated as to how this possibly could have occurred. The first, As I pointed out was the question as to whether this was all a product of diversification. All the while, Although scientists were puzzled, They did not think this pointed to creationism, For this boom could be traced, As I stated before, To organisms before. The beauty in evolution is that it enables organisms to undergo variations, And in surprising ways. Further there were geochemical observations, Yet these were easier to deal with. You see, It is believed that the drastic changes that had taken place were due to chemical markers, Which could be explained due to a mass extinction, Or methane ice contributing to massive warming. I shall give this to my opponent - scientists still are relatively puzzled by the rather surprising rate of species' fossils from the Cambrian explosion. What I negate is the reason he/she points this out to - creationism. Of all the theories that have been put forth, Some by renowned scientists like Stephen J Gould and Alexander Markov, None of these closely resemble the idea that some intelligence might have contributed. I shall explain these in detail, For sake of educated debate. 1. Ozone: Given the amount of Ozone (O3) that appeared to have been around during the era of the explosion would have contributed to the appearance of complex organisms. 2. The increase in Calcium in Cambrian seas. It is possible in all sense that the volcanically active midocean ridges would have caused calcium levels to rise, Which can perfectly be the reason for development of skeletons for organisms around this period. 3. According to a study (de Rosa, R. ; Grenier, J. K. ; Andreeva, T. ; Cook, C. E. ; Adoutte, A. ; Akam, M. ; Carroll, S. B. ; Balavoine, G. (June 1999). "Hox genes in brachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution". Nature) one can pinpoint the boom in organism development due to Hox genes. Hox genes, In a nutshell, Regulate what parts of the body the corresponding parts in the embryo develop into. This explains the large range of disparity to appear from a limited set of genes, But such theories linking this with the explosion struggle to explain why the origin of such a development system should by itself lead to increased diversity or disparity. This paradox is answered to by Physics. That's right, Physics of development. It is proposed that the emergence of simple multicellular forms provided a changed context and spatial scale in which novel physical processes and effects were mobilized by the products of genes that had previously evolved to serve unicellular functions. This debate seeks to establish that evolution cannot explain all this. Yet these scientific theories all find their base in the concept of organisms having to adapt in troubling circumstances, And gradually develop into better variations. Also, Unlike my opponent's claim that the explosion was short, 25 million years, While not being considerably long, Is perfectly compatible with all theories. In fact this explosion need not be such a huge evolutionary feat - the establishment of a "complexity threshold" - the maximum variation that an evolutionary process can lead to in such a short time - points to the explainable obscurity of this phenomenon from the purview of general science. The underlying fact in my argument is that there is no need for a Creator as such. I do not seek to offend religion, For I believe in a God, But only for my spiritual purposes. In reality, Evolution is our God. The floor is yours.