Darwin raised this concern about Cambrian Explosion that it was not enough time for phyla (body type) of all modern organism to appear and, more importantly, without evolutionary ancestors.
People have explained that we have limited (not zero) evidence of evolutionary ancestors because the kinds of life that evidently did exist are very unlikely to leave fossils.
I think using the phrase "body type" as a description of phyla is misleading in general conversation. Given that a significant phyla
chordata includes both humans and sea squirts.
Let us do some math. If the Planet currently has 8.7 million species after 99.9 % are extinct, there certainly has been thousands of millions of species in a relatively short period of 500 million years. Natural agents could not have caused such complex changes so, it was either Creation of Theistic Evolution.
I'm not seeing a chain of reasoning or justification. Why can't natural agents have caused such complex changes?
You can't just say "Let us do some math" then just declare yourself to be right because big numbers give you strong feelings of conviction.
If you missed this, I referred to Darwin for his concerns about Cambrian explosion. I have read about modern day Biologists trying to explain the sudden appearance of organisms during the late Cambrian period so, Darwin's concern is still valid.
The Cambrian explosion is a unique period of history... so obviously biologists would try to explain it... that's what scientists do, they look for explanations for evidence. They also have a whole lot more evidence available than Darwin did and so their explanations are more justified.
Without a time machine you never know for sure about the past... but you can make reasonable inferences based on evidence.
Imagine us found a multi story house, fully furnished and has electricity, water, internet etc. It takes just common sense to conclude that there was a (intelligent) design and designer behind the house. No one in their right mind would argue that some un planned, unintelligent agents built the house - say floods brought the raw materials, tornado and thunderstorms did the construction etc.
Flawed analogy. I know how houses are built, I've seen it. Houses don't breed, they don't grow on their own, we don't have billions of years of evidence of them existing and changing.
Also we see life doing exactly that, just absorbing lifeless material from nature, using exactly the same chemical processes found in non life.
Species are million times more complex than the house
and arguing that some "environmental changes" or " survival of the fittest" is the cause of the diversification makes little sense.
Except we've seen it again and again. Mutations create new variation and that variation can have a statistical increased chance of successful reproduction.
Then if the population is split then the variations can build up in different ways... presto, diversification.
Ever wondered why Evolutionists refused to explain the origin of life?
Because we don't know?
(And may never know).
Life is made up of complex organic chemicals...
Complex organic chemicals can spontaneously form from simple organic chemicals...
The kind of simple organic chemical that make up the complex chemicals of life exist all over the universe...
So we don't know the exact origin of life on Earth... but proposing the polymerisation of naturally occurring amino acids is hardly invoking magic.
