As far as I can see there is no evidence in what you have posted that says it is impossible for simple bilateral life forms to have evolved into the Cambrian fauna in 60+ million years.
"The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time"
Try actually reading the article next time.
Especially since you don't know how complex the genome of the 600ma bilateral life form is, it is just compared to later precambrian sponges which can't be considered a direct ancestor of the more complex Cambrian fauna anyway. In fact it seems rather disingenuous to compare sponges to arthropods, when they are very distently related. Plus there appear to be no information on the evolution of the regulatory genome or hox genes, I think we can assume that both of these things would have developed at this time ( the regulatory regions perhaps earlier ) and had a profound effect on the evolution of diverse body plans. These would not need any change in speed of evolution though.
The precambrian period was billions of years where the most advanced life forms were bacteria and fauna for billions of years. Then in a very brief window of natural history most of the primary taxanomic catagories appear suddenly, fully formed, in six to ten million years.
There are plenty of quite complex life forms around 10s of millions of years before the Cambrian, not only bilateria but also Vendobionts ( the ediacaran fauna ), some of which are bilateral as well.
The point was clear enough, you are comparing something with hundreds of nucleotides to cells that have millions. How you and everyone else is missing this is a mystery to me.
So I ask again, have you any evidence to suggest why simple Bilatera can't evolve into arthropods over 60+ million years?
There is no known mechanism for writting such a specific line of DNA code. It does not happen in nature and it did not happen in real history. Bacteria does not become Eukaryote cells, it simply is a matter of suppostion not science.
Because all I see above is an argument that sponges are simple and arthropods are complex. And that would appear to be no answer at all, so this will simply become another one of your arguments from personal incredulity, and therefore worthless.
Worthless is how I would describe the Single Common Ancestor Model. It has had no basis for it's universal application and yet it is an a priori fact in the minds of most scientists. In fact, worthless is an understatement.
edit - This paper also appears to come from quasi-rightwing think-tank, rather than a peer reviewed scientific journal as well. Which leads me to believe that they may have some political axe to grind here.
Baloney, you didn't read the article did you? You don't realize that this was published by a reputable scientific organization and go off into this mindless rant:
"On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C."
Edit - I also notice that they shave 10 million years off the age of the oldest ediacaran faunas. They don't have up to date information on the oldest bilateral fossils found. Most of the arguments are based around mutation rates of modern animals and make nothing of the fact that evolution of simple bilaterians to complex cambrian faunas would have happened at a time of immense advantage for large phenotypic change ( goldschmidts hopeful monster theory ) at the end of an ice age with subsequent flooding of extensive coastal shelf regions and the creation of a myriad of unexploited niches for the new bilateral multicellular body plan to exploit.
Sure improved body plans would help but first they have to result from an adaptation. This kind of adaptive radiation only happens in the myths written by Darwinians.
It is one huge argument from incredulity, based mainly on research on modern animals genomes.
methinks I smell rat, oh yes I smell a rat
It could almost have been written by Mark himself, it is a mighty body of work but it gives no reason why the Cambrian fauna couldn't have evolved over 70ma except that a similar explosion couldn't happen ion modern animals.
Well DUH!
It gives many reason supported by modern scientific literature that is cited, quoted and not some crackpot organizations either. Read the paper next time before you start jumping to ill-founded conclusions.
