The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I do not see why the discovery of a new species of semi-aquatic mammal proves it is ancestor to the whale. Evolutionists just love semi-aquatic organisms and are too desperate for intermediates to see them as what they are. Mudfish and otters are semi-aquatic, the existence of semi-aquatic organisms in the fossils record just proves the VARIETY of life, not the EVOLVING of life.Even though evolutionists justify the sudden appearance of fully formed organisms, creationism is a better explanation. They were already there fully formed in the niche environment, and this is why one never finds the intermediates in the niche environment. Evolutionists do have an excuse for the lack of evidence for their theory, yet the evidence favours creationism which needs no excuse. Because organisms did actually appear fully formed.

I'm having trouble understanding this. I'm not aware that evolution explains any "sudden" appearance of fully formed organisms. As my understanding goes, it explains the gradual appearance of new fully formed organisms as they change from other fully formed organisms over long periods of time. Which part of evolutionary theory refers to the sudden appearance of an organism ?

I enjoy your writing style. You say no-one is insulting, well I have been called a "liar" for accurately referring to a LUCA as the evolutionist's common ancestor. I have been called a liar for other unnecessary reasons. The language is unnecessarily emotive, revealing a vested emotional position beyond a mere quest for scientific truth. I find those types who insult like that showing a vulnerability, if one is confident in one's position then there is no need to resort to kindergarten tactics to prove one's point. Not saying you do that, sure your style is definitely insulting but at least you do so with wit rather than vitriole, I have no problem with that (being a little thickskinned).You applaud my backing down on a fact which is insignificant to my general position (diets of arthropods). Thank you. I am waiting for evolutionists to admit they are on shaky ground with their lack of intermediates. The existence of some aquatic mammal as a so-called whale intermediate or additional evidence of clades is insufficient to prove a theory like evolution. Darwin was mature enough to admit a weakness, no-one here has admitted there is such a weakness in evolutionary theory. All you guys will feel better about it when you do admit that the lack of intermediates especially from LUCA to the Cambrian Explosion is still a damning mystery to the theory of evolution. Anyone mature enough to admit such a fault in evolutionary theory? I await.

The evidence shows fully formed organisms suddenly appearing. The evidence contradicts the theory of evolution which theorises that organisms gradually change over time. With such a vast difference between the theory and reality, evolutionists then require a justification for the lack of transitionary fossils.They claim that fossilisation is a rare process, and so all the evidence of evolution is hidden away somewhere. We just observe the fully formed organisms, but the transitionary fossils are all hidden away in niches or never even fossilised. For EVERY organism through EVERY geological period these transitions are missing. The only actual evidence is of clades, which is exactly what creationists expect, an adaptive variety formed from an original organism.

What an utterly absurd as well as totally false statement. As a Christian I find you posts really embarrassing; giving the impression that Christians must be brain dead or consummate liars.Almost all major Christian sects not only accept the fact of evolution but also understand that the Theory of Evolution is the only existing explanation for what is seen in reality.What Christians mock is the silly Creationists and Creationism. Christians and Christian churches have been among the most vocal and effective opponents of the perverted nonsense marketed by Creationist.

quote:

---

I do not see why the discovery of a new species of semi-aquatic mammal proves it is ancestor to the whale.

---

Of course the claim is not the mere discovery of a semi-aquatic mammal (and more than one species is involved). The claim is that these mammals are anatomical intermediates between land mammals (artiodactyls) and whales. This, I submit is evidence of evolution - and dismissing it without even bothering to understand it is hardly arguing in good faith.

quote:

---

Even though evolutionists justify the sudden appearance of fully formed organisms, creationism is a better explanation. They were already there fully formed in the niche environment, and this is why one never finds the intermediates in the niche environment

---

Only if "better" means "more in accord with creationist belief".Unless you disqualify intermediates as "fully formed organisms" evolution predicts that we would only find "fully formed organisms" - so that can hardly count against it. And if you disqualify intermediates then you only emphasise the . And that the appearances of these fully formed organisms should be strongly in agreement with evolution, rather than environmental niches is really hard to explain - unless you accept evolution. And of course, given the degree of evolution that you do accept it is surely more parsimonious to extend it to larger groups than to assume divine creation followed by the group hanging around out of sight for long periods, without the slightest evidence for either.Creationism does not have a "better" explanation it has an ad hoc explanation that fails to explain important evidence. By any rational standard it would only be worth considering in the absence of an explanation which was a good fit to the evidence. And evolution is a good fit to the evidence.

It's incorrect? I just typed "evolution" into google scholar

quote:

---

About 4,980,000 results (0.07 sec)

---

That's scholarly, peer reviewd, papers only.5m erronious papers according to who? Mindspawn, an unqualified creationist whose only reason for taking this disingenous armchair interest is that evolution appears to conflict with a 2,000 year old primitive mythology.

Well here's a list of 177 transitional fossils: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia , so not really all that hidden away.Also (and I'm turning to the scientists for confirmation here), wouldn't you expect transitional fossils to be rarer ? Simply for the reason that transition will be more common during environmental upheavals or rapid and pronounced environmental change (when selection pressures are stronger) - and since we expect upheavals or periods of change to be fairly short, we equally expect the prevalence of transitional fossils to be lower than fossils laid down during stable periods, when populations are also more stable ?

That's a lie that creationists have made up.This is consistent with the theory of evolution, which predicts that creationists will have to lie in order to go on arguing. No, they claim that WE HAVE THE FOSSILS, WE WIN.And you know this, mindspawn, because I said so clearly and distinctly in post #654, which you must have noticed because you replied to it.So, mindspawn, you are deliberately lying, to us, about what we claim.How can you possibly hope to deceive us?

"The Wright Brothers were mature enough to admit that they couldn't fly across the Atlantic, no-one here has admitted that there is such a problem with transatlantic flight."

Just the hominid line contradicts your belief/claim. We have four or five million years of fossils showing gradual change over time, leading to modern humans.That you, for religious reasons, are unable to accept this evidence doesn't make it go away.

Nah. They don't show gradual changes. Even according to evolutionary time frames gibbons and monkeys co-existed 20 million years ago as they do today. Just because they have not found a great ape in those layers does not prove evolution, it just means the great apes were not as mobile or fast breeding as they spread out from the ark. ie they were only found in later layers.I confidently predict that if they keep searching the levant/Turkey area they will discover that the earliest great apes were concurrent with the earliest monkeys. The following link illustrates how evolutionary theory keeps changing. Gorillas were found earlier than expected:
World's oldest gorilla fossil challenges evolutionary beliefs | CBC NewsEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Kurt Wise had the maturity to admit that transitional fossils were real and significant evidence for evolution. No creationist here has admitted the strength of that evidence.

Yes I understand they should be a bit rarer. But the lack of transitionary fossils from the LUCA until the Cambrian explosion when multiple organisms appeared fully formed is so damning to evolution one wonders why its still an acceptable theory. Every existing phyla except Bryozoa appeared fully formed in the Cambrian. Hmmm it should make an intelligent observer think twice about the theory. Even as an intellectual exercise just to make sure. Helllooo anyone out there? As for your 177 transitional forms, except for some clades showing some short term adaptation, there is no clear evolutionary sequence for any modern organism from LUCA. Those 177 transitionals are mainly unique species with little evidence they have common ancestry as claimed. Sure some will be within a clade as claimed but not many can be proven as such.

I see multiple species in that picture of yours. Can you explain your interpretation of the picture and why you interpret it like you do?