The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

To those who know the field, those skulls are instantly recognizable!But since you don't know, here is an annotated photograph:

And, just to be clear about this, the areas that were entirely covered by molten lava happened to be the areas where all the mammals were?Then why are there mammals?

I posted it, I know for what purpose. It's to see how you separate them into apes and humans.

But we can point to many observable instances where the number of genes has increased, e.g. polyploidy, which has been reproduced under lab conditions.http://www.biology-pages.info/P/Polyploidy.htmlWhat we have never seen is an invisible wizard poofing organisms into existence by magic. That would be fantasy.

I notice that you did not provide your definition of the Theory of Evolution, and until we can agree on the terminology we will be talking past each other. I will continue to use mine until we can discuss yours. As I said in Evolution Process and Theory (I edited the subtitle) virtually all species show the process of evolution happening in every generation. and some by gene loss processes, and some by gene altering processes, ... ie -- the "changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation" ... ALL the processes of evolution are involved, not just net gain. They can also have some that are lost or altered. What we can be sure of (have high confidence in) is that differences in DNA accumulate over time, and thus there are always NET DIFFERENCES in the genes over time.What makes "unique active coding genes" different from other genes? Do you mean the genes that are expressed in the phenotyes?If what you mean is that every species, every variety, every individual, has some unique gene sequences, then you are talking about something that is mundanely true, because mutations happen. I again refer you to my definition:

quote:

---

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagensis⁽¹⁾, and the process of cladogenesis⁽²⁾, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

---

That is how evolution science explains all life forms, past and present. Not only "net gain" (which is a creationist PRATT). Well it is difficult to see DNA in fully permineralized or cast type fossils, but we do see the differences in phenotype over generations. For instance Pelycodus:

quote:

---

​

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. ...

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

Notice the high degree of overlap between generations, so most of the populations are similar in distribution of phenotype traits, but there are some gains and some losses. Note that anagenesis⁽¹⁾ is clearly visible from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus jarrovii but there are no longer any shared traits on the graph.Notice that we also see a clear division of the breeding population into two independent daughter populations, or cladogenesis⁽²⁾, in this fossil record.Thus we see that these two processes clearly explain this fossil record, that there is nothing "empty" or "fantasy" about these processes explaining this fossil record. We can clearly see the phenotype expression of the genotypes and the results of active gene differences between the populations generation to generation and between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus at the top.Can you explain why these observed differences need to be "net gains" in order to explain this evidence?Enjoy

---

Notes
⁽¹⁾ -- The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
⁽²⁾ -- The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.Edited by RAZD, : .

It should not be necessary to know any claimed sequence. The skulls shown represent branch tips of an evolutionary tree, not nodes; so there would not be any kind of linear relationship between them. Or in other words, one did not evolve into another. The issue is, if humans and apes are separately created species, then you should be able to clearly separate the groups based on morphological identity alone and those groupings should not relate to geological time. Here the image CS posted: However, I note these are all Hominins, so perhaps you might say they are all human. idk. Maybe Coyote's image would be a better example? Or in other words, why don't we find specimens like Ardipithecus ramidus in the same geological layers as Homo erectus. Why are they separated by geological time?If these skulls represent separately created "kinds" then they should be easy to group into human and ape, with no specimens that are in the grey, fuzzy area between the two "kinds" and these groupings should not be correlated to geological time. Somehow I doubt you are a forensic anthropologist... But, you certainly could make two groups and call one group apes and the other human based on some arbitrary cutoff for each character. However, I think you would find that it would not be too easy to create clean cutoff points for all characters that would provide consistent groupings. We refer to this phenomenon as incomplete lineage sorting. While several characters may produce one grouping, another set of characters may produce a different grouping. The reason for this is there are intermediates between the groups.So, you don't need some proposed sequence, you need to describe what characters separate humans from apes and then, using those characters, describe which species fit in which group and demonstrate there are no intermediate forms. I'd bet it couldn't be done even for a few characters present in the skulls. There are clearly intermediate forms.How about just answer this:Is Australopithecus africanus human kind or ape kind? What about Ardipithecus ramidus, human kind or ape kind? And why?HBD

The theory of evolution is fine as an explanation for how kinds have adapted minor DNA changes since creation week. I believe allele frequencies have a large role to play, but also some of the processes that you mention have been a reality.But the theory of evolution is incorrect as an explanation of where those original organisms came from. Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential.Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia
The composition of the LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendents, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in the LUCA.
Wade, Nicholas (25 July 2016). "Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things". New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2016.I repeat: Nearly every organism in existence today has more than the few hundred genes of the surmised LUCA. Thus for evolutionists, a gene adding process is essential. Yet we do not not observe any additional unique active coding genes that add fitness to any organism, therefore evolution is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. Creationism better fits the evidence..

I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence of the existence found below the P/T boundary of mammals and humans and reptiles and birds and flowering plants and all of the other kinds that are mentioned as existing before the flood or your concession that you are simply spewing shit.

Glad you agree. (Quote mining technique learned from creationists.) The theory of evolution deals with change. It does not attempt to define the origin of the initial organism(s). There are several competing hypotheses for original origins, none of which has risen to the level of a theory. (And no, creation is not one of them.) The theory of evolution does not attempt to define the origin of the initial organism(s).And no, creationism does not fit the evidence. You are forced to argue here that the flood was at the P-T boundary, some 250 million years ago because you can't find a better flood that is more recent. You are forced to argue that modern humans were cavorting around before most dinosaurs evolved, some 250 million years ago. You are also forced to deny virtually all forms of scientific dating. You have no evidence for any of these claims.So, it seems a little odd that you are trying to convince us that creationism fits the evidence when you are forced to ignore the vast majority of scientific evidence.You should just admit you are doing religious apologetics and quit pretending to do science.

Thus for creationists, an invisible sky-wizard who poofs animals into existence by magic is essential. Yet we do not observe any invisible sky-wizard who poofs animals into existence by magic, therefore creationism is a weak theory to explain the origins of modern organisms. Evolution better fits the evidence.Also I've told you about gene-adding processes on this and other threads, but you ignored me. Perhaps we should return to one of those threads for further discussion about fossils, as this thread is devoted to creationist errors concerning the fossil record, not genetics.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

mindspawn also ignored the fact that humans have fewer genes than Chimps...

That's fine for you, mindspawn. Yet, you're talking nonsense.You're a bit loony, mindspawn, but not all people are as loony as you are. Life is changing. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi Mindspawn,I'm just catching up in the thread and came across this comment that no one responded to: According to the Wikipedia article on Marsupials, this isn't true. Where does your information come from?--Percy

I'm glad that you admit that there's no actual theory of origins. Only hypotheses.Science should consider creationism, after all organisms did suddenly appear. The only reason not to, would be a propensity not to believe in God. But the facts do point to creationism, and such an hypothesis like abiogenesis is difficult to support due to the fact that many of those twenty amino acids require opposing environments to be created.But I digress. Yes we are both in consensus then, we both believe organisms evolve, and you do not admit that for most organisms evolution requires a net gene ADDING process. The only alternative is that the original LUCA had a genome with more unique active coding genes than the average modern organism, which is basically creationism.How would such a complex organism just appear, and then evolve from there without any gene adding process? That sudden unexplained appearance is creation. Do you really believe that, or alternatively do you believe that most organisms have more genes than the original LUCA?

That's common knowledge--among scientists. A theory in science is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. That theory must accommodate all the relevant facts and be contradicted by none of them. Creationists use the term "theory" in an entirely different way, generally meaning something like "wild-ass guess." You do realize, I hope, that science deals in evidence? You would rather believe in supernatural "poofs" for origins? And you claim that scientific explanations are "difficult to support?" I'll leave these paragraphs to those who are up on modern genetics. Bones and fossils are more my thing.And dating--you have been ducking the dating issue completely.