Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Lemonvariable72]

I maybe mistaken but I was under the impression that most of what we know of the cambrian comes from the burgess shale in Canada and a site in china, I could be wrong. Eitherway you have a hard enough time finding sedimentary rock from the ediacarian let alone fossils from that, which as you state, likely didn't have mineralized shells.

Burgess was the first big Precambrian find, around the turn of last century. A big find was made in china in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but these were followed shortly afterwards by many other Cambrian sites around the world. We now have a pretty good chronological column of fossils and fauna covering the whole if Cambrian, not just one or two slices in time in Cambrian.

You can now see lineages evolving within Cambrian, each fossil being a transition for something else that comes later.

As usual, more data and better understand will turn anything into a nightmare for biblical morons. Cambrian is certainly not excluded.

I shouldve figured you be better versed in this then me, after all you have anomalocaris in DP. Still I think the general point I was getting at still stands, Also rev I'd like to make a point about something in a answers in genesis you posted

Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a “hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find their own ancestors.

Thats utter bullshit. Total fucking bullshit. If you found and confirmed a find of a gorilla or chimpanzee ancestors every scientific journal would have your name on it, they very rare finds and far more prestigious then far more common human ancestor finds.