Darwin evolution going backwards? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, September 26, 2008, 00:43 (5901 days ago) @ George Jelliss

David Turell wrote: "What George didn't answer in my questions about explaning the Cambrian Explosion, is how did it occur so quickly, without intermediate forms required by Darwin, knowing the mutation rates that have been established, even assuming they were doubled or tripled? My answer is in the RNA. To use the Darwin excuse of there was time for one step at a time is answered by Cambrian. It was one huge giant step in a short time with huge changes in morphology, and the arrival of new organ systems: for example, early forms had very simple neural webs, but it is quite a jump to a nervous system with a notochord, as in the Pikaia of the Cambrian."
> 
> I thought I had answered this. It was in this "Truth of evolution" post: 
> http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=735
> "... the early Cambrian diversification opened up an exceptionally wide range of previously-unavailable ecological niches. When these were all occupied, there was little room for such wide-ranging diversifications to occur again, because there was strong competition in all niches and incumbents usually had the advantage." This suggests to me that the expansion was quick because there was no competition from existing life-forms. Even so it did take place over a very long time period, though shorter than is usual. - Please note my quote above. I think it is quite clear that I am asking reasonable questions, and George is giving non-answers. The example of the Cambrian Explosion clearly challenges the Darwin step-by-step theory. George invokes 'unoccupied ecological niches' and lack of competition. Of course the niches were unoccupied, the organisms weren't invented yet by evolution. Are we to suppose there was a biologic vacuum and Darwin evolution got sucked forward?