The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

quote:

---

You may notice that all the evidence I quote from is written by evolutionists. Evolution is so blindly accepted as fact, that they use evolutionary terms.

---

More debating tricks. The question is whether the quote actually supports your claims or not. That you impose your own interpretation on it - contrary to the intended meaning - only makes you guilty of misrepresentation.

quote:

---

I look past the evolutionary terminology at the actual facts presented

---

But you don't. In fact the quote does not present sufficient facts to support your claim. Nor have you done any serious thinking about the situation.For instance you might want to consider the fact that many wetland species - which you believe to have been present at the time - are not present in the fossil record of the Carboniferous.Or that a simple change of fauna through population movements need not be expected to show an evolutionary pattern - especially when we are talking about creatures that - according to you - have no evolutionary relationship.

quote:

---

Evidence is everything, evolutionary terms are mere assumption.

---

Then your continued refusal to seriously engage with the evidence - preferring your own inventions - is damning to your case.

quote:

---

I mean, really, if an ocean bed dries up, during the transition phase we would have some kind of mudfish. Then amphibians. Then purely terrestrial. How does this prove evolution

---

Aside from the fact that we see clear intermediates - for instance between fish and land animals. Apart from the fact that there are plenty of other animals we should see alongside amphibians (crocodilians, to raise an obvious example). And that is just a couple of examples off the top of my head.You aren't taking the evidence into account at all. Just taking a selective and superficial impression of it and claiming it supports you.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

From a quick google search this article is the most informative relating to evolution and the blood clotting cascade. If I had more time I might be able to find something I consider better, but it is pretty useful to the discussion.

The "theory of rare locations" is rather obviously an ad hoc excuse.It certainly doesn't explain any of the evidence that the theory of evolution does.It should be obvious that large and diverse groups can inhabit a wide range of conditions, so why should all of them be cooped up in a small area?Why have we found NONE of these "rare locations" ?You said earlier that "evidence is everything" Where is your evidence ?

Your hypothesis was that modern mammals - and many other species - existed from the Precambrian in limited areas.I think that we can safely say that your "evidence" falls far short of providing any real support for such a claim.And I would go further and suggest that all of it is better explained by evolution.The reasoning is simple. If evolution is true every group must originate in a limited area (which need not be the case if Creationism is true). So the distinction between evolution and your "theory of rare locations" comes down to where and when the diversity appears. "Rare locations" postulates that the diversity mostly appeared all at once, out of sight, while evolution - at least when dealing with higher taxonomic ranks - is happy with early divisions happening in one single location but much of the diversification would occur much later. And I suggest that both your examples fit the evolutionary pattern better.

quote:

---

Yes I acknowledge that the radiation out from rare locations would also fit evolution, the unique advantage of some alleged mutation occurring at a specific location and radiating out from there. It is the sudden appearance of these organisms that points to creationism rather than evolution, not the unique locations themselves

---

Of course it goes well beyond a single mutation. Speciation events will often occur in a limited area, and given the size of the areas you are talking about much more evolution can occur before the population breaks out into the wider world. This is precisely what your own sources suggest happened. It is also the case that we were missing intermediates covering whale evolution, and the return to an aquatic existence until palaeontologists found them in Pakistan.It is also the case that these events can produce "sudden appearances" - thus you are in no position to claim that trilobites, for instance, were created because they "suddenly appeared" - by using them as an example of a "unique location" you have admitted that their history prior to their appearance is unknown.

quote:

---

My problem with evolutionary theory is that other than the "clades" one would expect from creationism, there are not enough intermediates to be sure of the theory

---

Well that is rather obviously not the case, since there are numerous intermediates that we would not expect if creationism were true. Your best example is the Cambrian explosion, but even that is unclear - and there is evidence suggesting that the "sudden appearance" is a limit of the fossil record. Compare with your idea of modern mammals living in Siberia all the way from the Precambrian to the end of the Permian which has no evidence at all - all you can do is point to things that might make it plausible, and even then they do not go nearly far enough. (For instance, do you really have evidence that conditions in Siberia were constant throughout that period ? It isn't something that seems very likely. )If your views were correct we should have far more "sudden appearances" than we do. There are far too many intermediates for your ideas to be considered reasonable.

quote:

---

Those on this site can mock as you will. Deride. Insult. Yet the facts are there for all to see. It would take a unique non-conformist mind-set that searches for truth rather than respect from peers to acknowledge the truth of what I say. I am reasonably sure none such exist on this site, maybe one of the visitors will see the truth of what I say.

---

Anyone who searches for the truth would immediately uncover many of your errors. You may mistake spinning an ignorant fantasy for "undeniable" logic but anyone who searches for the truth would check your claims and find you out. Your behaviour invites - and arguably deserves - ridicule. Especially the ridiculous and arrogant boasts like the above.

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.

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.

Really at this stage the point is the number of transitions supported by the fossil record. To choose one is to miss the point, although the evolution of the mammalian jaw structure is an especially good one.But I have to ask what is the point ? You can't prove that the fossils don't exist. If you have an reasonable explanation for them you haven't offered one. And Kurt Wise is far more familiar with the evidence than you are ever likely to be. If a dedicated Young Earth Creationist, with a very good knowledge and understanding of the evidence says that transitional fossils are good evidence for evolution I think it has to be taken seriously.

quote:

---

If there are no preceding intermediates of similar physiology

---

That seems to be an odd criterion for not being "fully formed".For a start, by definition, intermediates have to come in between. So if we are looking at intermediates between two forms there will be a first intermediate. Because it is the first there can be no intermediates preceding it, so it would be "fully formed". Does that disqualify it as an intermediate ? If it does, then you have ruled out the possibility of any intermediates. If it does not, then what is the point of the criterion ?I will also take the opportunity to correct another error on your part. Intermediates often do not appear in reliably identifiable sequences - and we should expect this. First, because the fossil record is very spotty - large numbers of species are not represented at all, others represented by very scanty remains. And second, because we cannot get a good idea of the diversity of a species without a large sample.So it is quite possible - even likely - that parts of the historical sequence of ancestry are missing or not reliably identifiable.But we don't need the exact sequence. If our intermediate is a close cousin rather than a parent it hardly matters. The very existence of anatomical intermediates is predicted by evolution and not by creationism. That we should find so many - and often around the right time (although there is no reason why relatives cannot hang on longer, like the few surviving monotremes) is inexplicable given your assumptions.

quote:

---

I think you are not facing the facts that often the changes to the physiology are HUGE with no evidence of ANY intermediates in these massive jumps in so-called evolution.

---

Even if that is true in some cases - and it would have to be shown - it hardly helps your case when the gaps don't fit with your ideas.

quote:

---

The jump from LUCA or bacteria or eukaryote to trilobite is just too large to justify the theory.

---

Even there it would be false to say that there is NO evidence of intermediates. Such as the trace fossils of earlier Arthropoda alluded to previously in this thread.

quote:

---

You may pretend I ask too much by requiring intermediates, reality is that I'm merely asking for the most basic of evidence which is lacking.

---

But I don't. I say that you are being dishonest in denying the existence of the well-known intermediates that we do have and guilty of an extreme double standard when you really do have absolutely no evidence for Precambrian mammals. Even a few teeth or single bones or tracks would dramatically improve your case. if your evidence was better than the evidence for trilobite ancestors you might have a case -but in fact it is worse.

quote:

---

I'm not requiring an intermediate between every two intermediates

---

If your criterion does not reflect what you are actually asking for - and I never said that it did - then the fault is still yours. Pointing out the flaws in your criterion as stated by you is not constructing a strawman.

quote:

---

I require some justification for HUGE changes to physiology without any evidence of any evolving.

---

And nobody is disagreeing with that. However you also reject evolutionary relationships which don't require huge changes in physiology and where there is evidence of evolving.

quote:

---

Regarding predictability, creationism predicts that modern organisms will increasingly be found in early layers, and early organisms will sometimes still be around in niche environments (like the coelecanth). As research continues it is in fact creationism which grows stronger and stronger.

---

It is hard to see how creationism makes a stronger prediction of relict populations then evolution. And it would be surprising indeed if we did not find that some groups are older than expected. Even when the expectation is based on genetic data. But I will point out that none of these cones close to validating your ideas. Moving gorillas back from 8,000,000 years ago to 10,000,000 years is nowhere close to moving them back more than 500,000,000 years.

quote:

---

Regarding cousins, all you prove is that there are more and more species being discovered.

---

Obviously not. The whole point is that the cousin species is anatomically intermediate, and existing at the right time. It just isn't on the line of direct ancestry.To say that it is just another species is to arbitrarily discount the evidence.

quote:

---

The assumption that cousins have a common ancestor is mere assumption

---

The fact that you do not understand the reasoning - and let me remind you that you have demonstrated very poor reasoning abilities - does not mean that there is no reasoning.The fact that these species fit into the pattern predicted by evolution is evidence of common ancestry. Because evolution provides an explanation of thst pattern. If your ideas were true we should indeed just find random new species - which would not fit the pattern

quote:

---

Time ranges of the existence of each species are growing wider and wider. Gorillas found earlier than expected. Humans found earlier than expected. Civilisation has been found earlier than expected in Turkey. Concentrations of early mammal forms are found in Turkey as the flood story predicts.

---

As I have pointed out the earlier ratings do nothing to help your ideas, moving things much too little. The Bible doesn't even mention a civilisation in Turkey immediately following the Flood - the first city is Babel in Shinar (Sumeria). Not that the Turkish remains are anywhere close to being old enough when you put the Flood at the start of the Triassic - and I will bet that there will be problems with your "concentrations of early mammals" too

quote:

---

Slowly the squeeze on the evolution fantasy is increasing.

---

If the "squeeze" has to consist of denying evidence, misrepresentation and error and irrationally jumping to fallacious conclusions it is unlikely that you are fighting a fantasy.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Please be more specific about the trace fossils. If arthropods existed earlier than expected this could merely be confirmation of earlier trilobites not necessarily confirmation of their PREDECESSOR.

---

If the evidence is insufficient to come to a conclusion - even on a likelihood basis - then it can't be said to support one side or another. We cannot show that trilobites definitely had a predecessor but the evidence is certainly not good enough to say that there was none. In fact even the initial trilobite expansion from (probably) Siberia is not shown in the fossil record. Since we both agree that the trilobites expanded out from a single location we must also agree that the lack of fossils representing that expansion is a defect in the fossil record.In contrast, I remind you that you have absolutely no evidence for Precambrian mammals - or, indeed, any tetrapods. Not even ambiguous evidence. Nor even a good reason to think it plausible that such a diverse range of creatures were all hanging out in a single location, all unnoticed until they happened to pop out.

quote:

---

ie please post more detail about the physiology of the earlier arthropods to make your point relevant.

---

Obviously you have decided to make unreasonable demands after all. That hardly helps your position.

quote:

---

So in fact you have no evidence for any predecessor to the trilobite. Nothing. Yes sure you can surmise they existed, but that is on the level of fantasy.

---

More accurately we have sufficient evidence that an ancestor for trilobites is a reasonable possibility. Which is more than can be said for your Precambrian mammals.

quote:

---

Reality is they suddenly appeared fully formed as did MANY phyla at that time, the evidence favors creationism.

---

The reality is that the "sudden appearance" of trilobites is an artifact of the fossil record - even if your views are true. So that evidence favours neither side.

I think that the point is less "God would not have done it that way" than "there is no particular reason for God to have done it that way" - or at least it should be. And showing examples where God clearly did not do it that way emphasises the point.It is not a refutation of creationism, it is the assertion that evolution is the superior explanation because it does provide strong reasons for thinking that it ought to be that way.