The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Ok. Evolution by mutation and selection confirmed. Welcome to the real world, happy to have you.

Yeah for sure, I can confirm more examples. The duffy gene, whereby through natural selection humans with the duffy gene have become more common in areas vulnerable to malaria. Yes mutations occur, and they can add to fitness. You will find many mutations that add fitness are actually a REDUCTION in the number of active coding genes, not a gain. There are examples where a previously inactive gene becomes re-activated via mutation, this also is not a gain, its merely a re-activation of a non-unique gene that already existed and used to be active in the "kind".My dispute is with the GENE ADDING process whereby say a human is claimed to have a net gain of unique coding genes over time. compared to the alleged LUCA. Evolutionists do not focus on this, because the claims are not matched by evidence/observation. However this process is central to evolution because most organisms are found to have MORE unique active coding genes than what the original LUCA would have had. The alternative that the original LUCA had the most active genes is just another form of creationism, so unfortunately you evolutionists are stuck with believing in a process that does not exist.The idea that a bacteria-type common ancestor with 1000 genes can evolve into something with 2000 genes or more is fantasy. A theory with no evidence. And so nearly every organism remains unexplained from an evolutionist perspective.

This one is funny. mindspawn doesn't realise that the difficulty in placing fossils as being either human-apes or non-human apes actually is excellent evidence for human evolution?I'll use a creationist word. Proved.mindspawn 'proved' that we have intermediates between non-human apes and human apes as they can't easily be classified as modern apes or modern humans. Those are somewhere inbetween. mindspawn unknowingly 'proved' human evolution to all of us.

I don't think it's always clear. In the past I have had to do a bit of research.

Haha I like your deductive reasoning, but it's not like that. Outwardly humans and other apes do have similarities compared to other mammals. There can be confusion. Especially if the fossil is not complete. Two similar species outwardly just does not prove evolution.

Ah great. Could you direct us to the research you've done on those fossils you excavated and also where you published that researchin some peer-reviewed scientific journal?Let's just give you a little hint. Reading stuff on fossils on some creationist website is not research. Quoting what someone said is not research in the natural sciences.Provide your data.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Yes human DNA is different to other apes DNA. That kinda has been proved. They say slight differences, but when you are looking at 3 billion base pairs, a few percent makes a huge difference.

Let's be honest. We have genuine anatomical intermediates. Creationism gives us no reason to expect that, evolution requires them. This is evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

Yes human DNA is different to other apes DNA

---

So is chimpanzee's DNA. Do try thinking about your arguments, please.

The diffence is that evolutionary theory can explain those differences scientifically. Poofing things into existence can't.

Right, so you confirm that genetic mutation plus selection combine to cause the evolution of species.Job done then.

Really? Who said that? Creationists? I think that you're not telling the truth here.Humans have unique genes. So do Chimps. So do Swedish Elk. So do some Amoebas.Some of those organisms have more genes than humans do.Have you been reading too much creationist propaganda instead of scientific sources? Have you been told lies you believe without checking the original sources?mindspawn, YEC's always tell untruths. That's all they have.He-he-he. As a side note, could you provide me with the difference in number of 'unique coding genes' between, say, modern humans and Chimps? That would be interesting to hear the answer from you. How do you measure the number of 'unique coding genes'?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

mindspawn has gotten all of you to take the bait and head down the rabbit hole. Creationists are good about that.mindspawn made a claim that the Biblical flood was at the P/T boundary.The Bible says that there were humans and mammals and reptiles and birds before the flood. That means there MUST be evidence of those critters below the P/T boundary if that was when the flood happened and not just those critters killed in the flood but all the other mammals and reptiles and birds and trees and flowering plants that lived and died between creation and the flood. There has to be some evidence.The Bible also said that those critters did not just live in the highlands or Siberia so claiming the evidence is buried under the Siberian Traps is simply silly or makes the Bible a bunch of lies.When is mindspawn going to produce ANY evidence to support his assertion or will he simply continue to palm the pea, cheat the rubes, dance the Gish Gallop like all Creationists from the beginning of Creationism?

But all of the early "ape-man" fossils are in Africa. Later they spread to Java, China, and other places.None have been found in Siberia.The pattern is clearly radiating out from Africa.

But yet you are willing to tell experts, who not only are trained but have studied this field most of their adult lives, that they are wrong.Typical creation "science" at work.