- Dec 2, 2021
- 1,261
- 752
- 49
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I wasn’t “unnecessarily rude.” Larniavc had repeatedly demanded “evidence please” without showing genuine engagement, tossed out condescending questions with minimal effort, and added nothing to the discussion but baiting tactics. If someone can’t even construct a proper sentence or act respectfully, I’m not obligated to treat them like a serious participant.Since you had to be unnecessarily rude to larniavc for asking a very pertinent and important question about your claims about the Cambrian Explosion: even at its lowest end of 3,000,000 years, that's still a massive time frame and more than long enough for live to evolve in, so why is it a problem for the Theory of Evolution?
Now, to your question: Yes, 3 million years is a long time in human terms, but in geological terms, it’s short, especially when discussing the sudden appearance of most major animal body plans (phyla) with no clear gradual transitions in the fossil record. That’s the issue. The rate of morphological innovation during the Cambrian far outpaces what’s typically observed in evolutionary processes, and the lack of abundant precursors adds to the puzzle. Even some evolutionary biologists acknowledge this as a significant challenge and have proposed alternative mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, or niche-filling bursts to explain it, precisely because standard gradualism doesn't easily account for it. So yes, it poses real questions for the Theory of Evolution.
Dismissing it with “3 million years is plenty” oversimplifies the problem.
Upvote
0