The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Until you show us the criteria you use to determine if a fossil has no ancestors, you don't have a point. All you have is denial. How do you determine that a fossil has not ancestral intermediates just by looking at it? What about the intermediate hominids?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I am still waiting for you to explain why evolution can not change size in both directions through time in a single lineage.

quote:

---

Why?

​

Why can't evolution produce a lineage where size moves up and down over time?

---

In theory it can produce moves up and down. But if you no longer have a transitionary sequence of physiology then what do you have left? Nothing. So a large jump in the wrong direction of a particular feature logically eliminates that particular so-called intermediate as evidence for evolution.

Why would a transition have to depend on size alone? Would you accept a trout as an intermediate between mice and humans because it is intermediate in size?Don't you think it has a lot more to do with the shape of the bones and not just their size?

quote:

---

If there are no preceding intermediates of similar physiology

---

That seems to be an odd criterion for not being "fully formed".For a start, by definition, intermediates have to come in between. So if we are looking at intermediates between two forms there will be a first intermediate. Because it is the first there can be no intermediates preceding it, so it would be "fully formed". Does that disqualify it as an intermediate ? If it does, then you have ruled out the possibility of any intermediates. If it does not, then what is the point of the criterion ?I will also take the opportunity to correct another error on your part. Intermediates often do not appear in reliably identifiable sequences - and we should expect this. First, because the fossil record is very spotty - large numbers of species are not represented at all, others represented by very scanty remains. And second, because we cannot get a good idea of the diversity of a species without a large sample.So it is quite possible - even likely - that parts of the historical sequence of ancestry are missing or not reliably identifiable.But we don't need the exact sequence. If our intermediate is a close cousin rather than a parent it hardly matters. The very existence of anatomical intermediates is predicted by evolution and not by creationism. That we should find so many - and often around the right time (although there is no reason why relatives cannot hang on longer, like the few surviving monotremes) is inexplicable given your assumptions.

quote:

---

It is a picture of many intermediate forms, and I interpret it as a picture of many intermediate forms because it is a picture of many intermediate forms.

---

I see multiple species. To develop your point , I suggest you make one.

Or better yet, a species can go from fully formed to half formed simply because we find an earlier fossil with less derived features. Nothing about the morphology or physiology of the fully formed fossil would change, yet it would suddenly become half formed. That doesn't make any sense.

Just as you should see in a transitional series.You claim they are not transitional. What criteria are you basing this on? Be specific.

My point is that there were many intermediate species, which is why we have all these fossils of intermediate species.

Yes you did. No.

And proved false, and ridiculed. So if you want to give up, that's fine. Gather up the tattered remnants of your dignity (your integrity, alas, is past salvaging) and by all means leave. All the intermediates we find support our view. And your complete failure to find a single one of the fossils which would be there if your daydreams bore any resemblance to reality invalidates yours.We have the fossils. We win.

Well of course much of the Bible is perverted nonsense but that is not what I was saying.You claim that you see that wording as literal yet the very next story in the Bible contradicts almost everything that is included in Genesis 1 as well as describing an entirely different God.What is perverting the Bible is the utter nonsense and bullshit of trying to claim it is literal, factual, without error, without contradiction, historically accurate and not in many cases si9mply propaganda.To claim that the Creation myths in the Bible stories were ever meant to be considered as factual or literal simply make the claimant look at best as ignorant and in most cases as dishonest.

So, just to be clear about this, in your world possums, kangaroos, koalas and wombats all diverged from a common ancestor within a few thousand years, but hominids with different-sized pelvises can't be related to each other?

quote:

---

That seems to be an odd criterion for not being "fully formed".

​

For a start, by definition, intermediates have to come in between. So if we are looking at intermediates between two forms there will be a first intermediate. Because it is the first there can be no intermediates preceding it, so it would be "fully formed". Does that disqualify it as an intermediate ? If it does, then you have ruled out the possibility of any intermediates. If it does not, then what is the point of the criterion ?

​

I will also take the opportunity to correct another error on your part. Intermediates often do not appear in reliably identifiable sequences - and we should expect this. First, because the fossil record is very spotty - large numbers of species are not represented at all, others represented by very scanty remains. And second, because we cannot get a good idea of the diversity of a species without a large sample.

​

So it is quite possible - even likely - that parts of the historical sequence of ancestry are missing or not reliably identifiable.

​

But we don't need the exact sequence. If our intermediate is a close cousin rather than a parent it hardly matters. The very existence of anatomical intermediates is predicted by evolution and not by creationism. That we should find so many - and often around the right time (although there is no reason why relatives cannot hang on longer, like the few surviving monotremes) is inexplicable given your assumptions.

---

I think you are not facing the facts that often the changes to the physiology are HUGE with no evidence of ANY intermediates in these massive jumps in so-called evolution. The jump from LUCA or bacteria or eukaryote to trilobite is just too large to justify the theory. Then we have the same situation across multiple organisms. You have decent logic to keep your head deeply buried in the sand in the face of contrary evidence. You may pretend I ask too much by requiring intermediates, reality is that I'm merely asking for the most basic of evidence which is lacking. I'm not requiring an intermediate between every two intermediates, I require some justification for HUGE changes to physiology without any evidence of any evolving.Regarding predictability, creationism predicts that modern organisms will increasingly be found in early layers, and early organisms will sometimes still be around in niche environments (like the coelecanth). As research continues it is in fact creationism which grows stronger and stronger.Regarding cousins, all you prove is that there are more and more species being discovered. The assumption that cousins have a common ancestor is mere assumption. In every geological period there is a large range of organisms as creationism predicts, so of course you will find some expected ones in each layer and think you are proving evolution. But science is finding unexpected ones, confusing ones as well. Time ranges of the existence of each species are growing wider and wider. Gorillas found earlier than expected. Humans found earlier than expected. Civilisation has been found earlier than expected in Turkey. Concentrations of early mammal forms are found in Turkey as the flood story predicts. Slowly the squeeze on the evolution fantasy is increasing.

quote:

---

So, just to be clear about this, in your world possums, kangaroos, koalas and wombats all diverged from a common ancestor within a few thousand years, but hominids with different-sized pelvises can't be related to each other?

---

Not at all. They can be related. But if you are relying on physiology as your evidence of evolution, and that physiology is inconsistent it ruins your evidence. They could be related or they could be unique species. There is in some cases a recently adapted clade which can be convincing, other than that most evolutionary sequences are unconvincing because of these sudden jumps in physiology in one feature which ruins the sequence and seems to indicate a unique species. I know under evolutionary assumption they remain related because of their close physiology, but as evidence against creationism the sequence is ruined if it is not completely convincing.