The man in the video lost me when he demonstrated that he misunderstood the Cambrian Explosion as it is propounded by the relevant fields of science, and furthermore suggested that his understanding (misunderstanding) of it was a central basis for his conclusions (i.e., it was this misunderstanding to which he applied his math). Once that was established, I had no need to listen further. What would be the point? Garbage in, garbage out.
No, just no. He said that the Cambrian explosion is what caused him to begin to question it. For the point of the math involved, it matters not whether he is correct in his assertions or you are correct in yours that the Cambrian explosion was a much longer and more gradual event.
Address the fricking math.
