DAVID: We've met the highly trained Bechly before. The slope we discussed between Ediacaran and Cambrian under 'miscellaneous' may still be just a gap. Darwinists sure try hard to get rid of it.

Your original comment was:

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

You fully expected there to be a relation between late Ediacaran and early Cambrian, and were certain that there was no abrupt dividing line in evolution, so I don’t know why you are suddenly sneering at Darwinists who think the same as you. Of course I have no idea whether Bechly is right or wrong – we’d need a response from the authors, who may also be “highly trained”. But this doesn’t alter your original statement, which seems to me to be a commonsense assumption for anyone who believes in common descent. I suggested that the “major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians” was covered by the fact that a lot can happen in 55 million years, especially if we consider the possibility of cellular intelligence as the driving force for speciation.