Originally posted by Darfius
I'd honestly like a Darwinian's explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

As there is no solid hypothesis for this event in the evolutionary community, I can't really give an explanation. I don't know enough about it yet to really give my analysis. So, I don't know.

It didn't "blow up" Darwin's theory. There are many possibilities for why it occurred. However, why it did occur is not known, just as some detailed mechanisms of biochemistry are not known. That doesn't mean there are little invisible organelle elves which supernaturally make these reactions go!

Originally posted by Darfius
I'd honestly like a Darwinian's explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion is a standard topic for antievolutionists. There are several reasons for this: many taxa make their first appearance in the Cambrian explosion; the amount of time within the period of the Cambrian explosion is geologically brief; and we have limited evidence from both within and before the Cambrian explosion on which to base analysis. The first two factors form the basis of an antievolutionary argument that evolutionary processes are insufficient to generate the observed range of diversity within the limited time available. The last factor is a general feature of the sorts of phenomena that antievolutionists prefer: not enough evidence has yet accrued to single out a definitive scientific account, so it is rhetorically easy for a pseudoscientific “alternative” to be offered as a competitor. In Meyer’s closing paragraph, he mentions “experience-based analysis.” The consistent experience of biologists is that when we have sufficient evidence bearing upon some aspect of biological origins, evolutionary theories form the basis of explanation of those phenomena (an example where much evidence has become available recently is the origin of birds and bird flight; see Gishlick 2004).

Review of Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.

by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry

Originally posted by Wulebgr
...we have limited evidence ... on which to base analysis...
...not enough evidence has yet accrued to single out a definitive scientific account...
by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry

In short. 😉

Originally posted by Coletti
In short. 😉 ...

pseudoscientific alternatives will be offered as a competitor at every boundary of scientific theory until most people can no longer distinguish between reason and propaganda, scientific methods and theological pronouncements

Originally posted by Coletti
In short. 😉

The consistent experience of biologists is that when we have sufficient evidence bearing upon some aspect of biological origins, evolutionary theories form the basis of explanation of those phenomena

Slightly less short, but highly relevant.