Cambrian Explosion, is real (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 27, 2013, 17:47 (4146 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The pre-cambrian flora have no explanation for the Cambrian. Red in tooth and claw arrives in the Cambrian. No claws or teeth in prior periods. Darwin has no explanation except a paucity of fossil record. That record is now well documented and precursors just ain't there. No Mt. Improbable to climb.-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/as_darwins_doub073571.html-It's not just Darwin who had no explanation. Nobody can explain it. At the risk of becoming a prize bore, may I repeat my hypothesis?-It's obvious that all these new organs and organisms could not have come into being or survived unless the environment was conducive to their invention and survival. The "intelligent cell/genome" is the driving force behind innovation, and once an invention is successful, as we know from our own human experience, it not only catches on, but gives rise to countless variations. (Think of the wheel.) Whether the Cambrian lasted for 5, 10 or 20 million years, this so-called "blink of an eye" allows for hundreds of thousands of generations, and hundreds of thousands of variations. The key has to be a change in the environment which allowed the "intelligent cell/genome" to come up with a vast new range of inventions.-Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how the "intelligent genome" came into being in the first place. But Darwin's theory is not concerned with such origins ... it only focuses on common descent and how evolution might work. My proposal dispenses with Darwin's weak links (random mutations, gradualism, lack of fossils), but ... since the "intelligent genome" can only operate from within existing organisms ... preserves the all-important lines of common descent, even throughout the Cambrian Explosion. Natural selection would then have determined which innovations survived.
 
Environmental change, innovative responses from the "intelligent genome", natural selection. Can anyone come up with a more convincing explanation?