The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

If you identify the Creationist "kinds" with the phyla of taxonomy - an unusual idea which grants more to evolution than almost any creationist is willing to admit, perhaps you ought to include that in your answer to the fossil record.Perhaps Adam and Eve were Haikouella
Or something similar.

I beg to differ. Context is important when interpreting the bible. In Genesis 6:19 as well as Genesis 7:15-16 twos are mentioned, specifically male and female. Considering context is about preserving life, its pretty obvious when the twos are mentioned these are mating pairs. Some bibles rather use the word "pairs". Noah is instructed to bring mating pairs from all sorts onto the ark. In Genesis 7:2-3 he is more specifically instructed to bring seven pairs from certain sorts.And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.Think of it like this: there is a national dance competition. They are instructed to bring couples from every state to the competition. But then they are specifically told to bring 3 couples from the bigger states. Does this contradict their original instruction to bring couples from every state? No it does not.So I do not see any contradiction there. The mention of twos is an emphasis on mating pairs of the various kinds/sorts.

I do believe in rapid short term evolution, more than other creationists and any evolutionists are willing to admit. I believe this is through changing allele frequencies.But honestly that was just an idea I was throwing out to base "kinds" on phyla. My apology for giving the wrong impression of my view. It's difficult to determine a "kind" without DNA analysis of those original species and the existence of convergent evolution makes it difficult to judge based on outward appearance of the fossils. The "kind" is logically determined by DNA structure, number of genes, number of base pairs in each gene, number of chromosomes, length of chromosomes etc Within that DNA structure kinds can rapidly adapt, as has been proven even by the fly which can adapt annually to changes in temperature via changing allele frequencies across the population as the seasons change. I can post a link if you like. (hopefully not because then it takes up my time)

Haha yes I am a "really fast evolutionist". But I believe in observable and provable phenomena. The changing of allele frequencies can cause dramatic changes to outward appearance without changing the DNA structure. In this manner a South American possum can adapt into a variety of outwardly different Australian marsupials whilst still retaining the original matching DNA structure.This is different to the type of evolution described by evolutionists with all modern species surmised as existing due to the number of unique active genes increasing over time since some original prokaryote. I say the core genetic structure of active genes of every kind remains unchanged even across breeds since creation. there will be minor exceptions with maybe some reduction of active DNA functionality in certain instances to create separate breeds, and a few minor point mutations.Honestly my view does require humans and other mammals of today to exist during the time of the Cambrian explosion. Sorry for stating things differently. So other than some OOPARTS which I do believe are legitimate I am missing the masses of fossils one would expect. This is because the only pre-flood environment conducive to mammal life (containing angiosperms) and also less susceptible to flooding is the vast Siberian highland which is covered in volcanic flood basalts (lava rock). Its impossible to dig for fossils there unless one is lucky to find fossils in a deep isolated Russian mine.I believe the missing fossils of the pre-boundary era are a minor flaw in my version of creationist theory compared to lack of evolutionist explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. All those missing links required!

What you are missing is that if you want to claim the Appearance of phyla as evidence of Creation you really have to equate phyla with "kinds". So the whole idea of the Cambrian Explosion supporting creationism doesn't really work even if you throw out the dating evidence. Not that there is a good reason to throw out the dating evidence.

I looked up Ediacaran biota. They do not appear to be the missing link you are looking for. nothing about them appears to be a missing link between prokaryotes and the phyla of the Cambrian Explosion.It appears the predominant environment on the planet was as follows:
1 Cold/Anoxic Ediacaran biota
2 Warm/Anoxic/sulfuric bacteria/trilobites (plus some more)
3 The presence of large volumes of bacteria then cause widespread aerobic conditions.If this is correct , this is not evolution, its the spread of niche organisms due to widespread volcanic activity then widespread bacterial activity allowed more organisms to spread outside their niche.

And yet you have neither observed nor proved that the evolution of all the dinosaurs just took a couple of thousand years. No, of course not.Where did you get that idea? And I think it's a major flaw, especially since by contrast we have all these intermediate forms.

You are incorrect there. The sudden appearance of a number of organisms even if not reflecting all organisms is still creationist evidence, not evolutionary evidence.

As soft-bodied bilaterians, things like, say, Dickinsonia do seem like plausible precursors to bilaterians with exoskeletons, with species with cataphract armor as an intermediate stage.

Statements without evidence mean nothing. Someone mentioned Ediacaran organisms as intermediate fossils to explain the sudden appearance of multiple organisms in the Cambrian Explosion. There is nothing intermediate about those fossils. So you need to support your claim of intermediate forms.Please supply your evidence for the sudden appearance of multiple organisms in the Cambrian Explosion. A sudden appearance of organisms points directly to creation, not evolution.

quote:

---

I believe the missing fossils of the pre-boundary era are a minor flaw in my version of creationist theory compared to lack of evolutionist explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. All those missing links required!

---

In fact the opposite is true. We have some fossils. We have reasons to expect many fossils to be missing (creatures without hard parts and very small creatures only fossilise under rare conditions - and those are the conditions where the fossils we do have are found). In contrast the assumption that all the "modern"life was living in Siberia is an ad hoc assumption - and not a very likely one.Evidence beats ad hoc assumptions every time.

quote:

---

You are incorrect there. The sudden appearance of a number of organisms even if not reflecting all organisms is still creationist evidence, not evolutionary evidence.

---

Humans evolving from primitive chordates doesn't sound like any sort of creationism I've ever heard of.

Australia's marsupials 'have American roots' - BBC NewsStrong outward diversity exists in two different animals even though these are the same "kind". Having the same DNA markers and same common ancestor.

quote:

---

It appears the predominant environment on the planet was as follows:
1 Cold/Anoxic Ediacaran biota
2 Warm/Anoxic/sulfuric bacteria/trilobites (plus some more)
3 The presence of large volumes of bacteria then cause widespread aerobic conditions.

​

If this is correct , this is not evolution, its the spread of niche organisms due to widespread volcanic activity then widespread bacterial activity allowed more organisms to spread outside their niche.

---

It is not correct, as we already know, but if it was correct it would hardly agree with YEC expectations. Air-breathing life does not do well without atmospheric oxygen.

I explained myself. I don't believe humans evolved from primitive chordates. That then is a strawman argument.