@rosborne979,
HAving said that, i have to reconsider who first printed the concept of a "Cambrian EXplosion" and how that entire tale was repackaged by science reporters and how it ws bought as ultimate "truth" even though, since the inception of the concept, science has been shooting holes in the "Sudden appearnace in the fossil record of complex life"
As I presented a page back, The entire CAmbrian Explosion can actually be driven back into the NEOARCHEAN period , when fossils of the three major simple life forms were first notede. AND the first examples of complex life (including mollusca, annelida, and arthropoda,) were first seen in sedimentary rocks over 2.1 Billion years old. The actual 560 mya "Cambrian Explosion" dates were actually another 40 plus MY older than what had been initially reported and the entire sequence of development of complex life took about another 500 million years or about the entire time length from the mid Cambrian till today.
Its been a matter of exposure in sediments . SInce most geological exposures decline geometrically with each 100 million years , actually finding exposures of early sediments hs been the biggest problem.
This is fairly recent evidence and the "Cambrian Explosion" as an argument that Creationists have clung to is not a real problem to DArwinian development.
I just wish that guys like BAkker and Gould, would have considered their own phrase generator skills before they opened their yaps. I think Gould is more responsible for fuel that the quote miners have used in the past. Now that Goulds "Explosion" is seen to be just another data node , Im sure that some junior high school kids, reasonably conversant with the fossil record, could do a lot to explain to their legilsators how stupid thelegislators positions are, And that science has never been static