What about the Cambrian Explosion? Evolution predicts gradual transitions instead, suddenly complex and varied types all appear at once.
Evolution doesn't predict gradual transitions will be recorded in the fossil record.
Why?
I'll quote the answer to you:
quote:
One huge problem with finding such
animals is that they did not have hard
skeletons that would mineralize and become
fossils. So we must rely on uncovering
the rare deposit that, because of
the type of rock and the chemical processes
involved, preserves intricate details
of the remains. These deposits are
called lagersttten, a German word that
means “lode places” or “mother lode.”
A lagersttte that preserves soft tissue is
a spectacular rarity; we know of only
several dozen scattered over the earth.
From
SciAm
Before hard body parts, we have little fossil evidence because the kind of rock that preserves soft body parts is very very rare. So, as various lineages started to develop hard body parts their opportunity to be fossilized is raised. So we see in the non-lagerstatten, a sudden appearance of organisms with hard body parts. However - diversity did still increase rapidly. The theory here is that life was beginning to transform the world and a subsequent increase in the opportunities for life on it.
quote:
These biological interactions played a strong role in the
early evolution of animals. Yet as Charles Marshall of Harvard
University has argued and as our findings support, the genetic
tool kit and pattern-forming mechanisms characteristic of
bilaterians had likely evolved by the time of the Cambrian
explosion. Thus, the “explosion” of animal types was more
accurately the exploitation of newly present conditions by
animals that had already evolved the genetic tools to take
advantage of these novel habitats rather than a fundamental
change in the genetic makeup of the animals.
The creation model says there was a worldwide flood - so sudden catastrophic processes buried billions of life forms in sediment, excluding oxygen, rapidly forming many sediment layers with sea creatures forming around 95% (or more) of the fossils that are found would seem to me to be a more acceptable proposition
Which leads to the prediction that 5% or less of the fossils will be non-marine? Thus we should see this approximate mix equally in all layers in all places (since it was a worldwide flood).
Well preserved fossils don't form gradually by dying and being slowly covered over over a long time period.(They would rot or being scavenged).
So your prediction would be that almost all animals were fossilized at this time, since they were all subject to approximately the same conditions?
The uniformatarian principle became accepted as the alternative to the big flood by various atheist or materialistic geologists who were not keen on the flood proposition and wanted another explanation (any other explanation).
Irrelevant. Let's just look to the facts, not the motives behind various factions, OK?
Birds and cats and everything appearing suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil layers would not be a creationist proposition since creationists do not believe that the sedimentary layers represent long periods of geologic time. Creationists believe in some kind of rapid hydrologic sorting such as that seen at Mt St Helens in 1980 as the mechanism at work in sedimentary layers
I'm aware of creationist propositions. They have yet to explain how this hydrologic sorting makes the layers in the pattern that they do, as if each different layer represented a different 'age'. Indeed many creationist geologists had come to the conclusion that to explain the evidence we would have to propose multiple catastrophes, Noah's being the last one.
™ Version 4.2
