The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

1) No the rain would have started almost immediately with the volcanic activity. This is common to volcanoes. The combination of the rapidly rising hot air, and seeding air with ash particles creates perfect conditions for torrential downpours. The animals were already on the ark.2) Most of the terrestrial region was covered by the Siberian Traps. Other than the thick layer of rock, the region is very remote. I am sure that discoveries on the edge of the flood basalts are possible, not impossible.My main point regarding lobsters is that all organisms have a preferred environment. Many factors influence this, oxygen, sulfur, predators, protective exoskeletons, diet, air pressure, co2, temperature etc etc. I do not know enough about trilobites and modern crustaceans to be able to compare what conditions favor each grouping. Except to say that trilobites would still be common if widespread conditions continuously favored their fitness.Regarding reptiles surviving the flood, yes these were the equivalent of sea crocodiles. Able to swim indefinitely so they had no problem "treading water for a year". In addition many dinosaurs had signs of feathers, they could have been ark birds also adapted to huge sizes after the flood. So we have convergent evolution where under the new post boundary greenhouse effect, sea crocodiles and other reptiles and birds are arriving onto empty continents and rapidly adapting to fill those ecological niches and achieving a similar body shape. So I do not doubt there was an overlap between the two. This dinosaur to bird theory may soon change to a "bird to dinosaur" theory as scientists analyse the origin of the more bird-like dinosaurs that had no signs of pre-flood ancestry.Regarding a flood at the P-T boundary there are huge signs of flooding. A debate exists in scientific circles if there was a major marine transgression, or a major marine regression at the PT boundary. Maybe you are not in touch with that debate? There are signs of BOTH so you cannot claim no signs of flooding at the PT boundary. There were such signs and I already posted evidence of this on this site. Of course the bible solves the debate, describing a major flood, then a rapid regression. The transgression was first and for not very long in geologic terms. The regression afterwards, and the regression would have wiped out some signs of the transgression.

Many species radiated out from a specific location, yet appeared fully formed without any sign of an evolutionary sequence since a LUCA. Trilobites are one example:http://publish-www-ufl.wcm.osg.ufl.edu/...o-animal-life.html
"Trilobites, the primitive shelled creatures considered by many to be among the first animals to appear in the fossil record, may have originated in a place known today largely for its barren lifelessness: Siberia."Page not found - Plant Index
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle.Many of these fossils were extraordinarily well-preserved, and they were mysterious. They included strange forms like Anomalocaris, Opabinia, Wiwaxia, and Hallucigenia. These fossils revealed a mystery: like other Cambrian fauna, these strange soft-bodied fossils appeared in the fossil record abruptly, without evolutionary precursors.Cambrian Fossils Still a Dilemma for Darwinism 100 Years After Discovery of Burgess Shale | Evolution News
"Darwin himself was aware of this problem in his own day, writing that the lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of Cambrian trilobites "must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Nearly 150 years after Darwin penned those words, biology textbooks are still observing things like, "Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian." Indeed, the striking appearance of animals in the Cambrian explosion is captured in a recent article in Nature article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Wolcott's discovery, stating that "virtually all animal groups alive today were present in Cambrian seas."Most animal phyla appear fully formed. Many of these do not appear suddenly all over earth, but radiate out from an early location.

How many times must I say that the missing pre-boundary fossils are in Siberia. Of all the pre-boundary locations on earth, climate and oxygen levels and elevation and signs of angiosperms point to a northern biome more suitable to the common modern life-forms. This is where earlier marine organisms like the trilobite radiated out from, and when oxygen levels dropped this is where later terrestrial organisms would have also radiated out from.This area is remote and largely covered by flood basalts and so has been neglected re fossils. Which aside from our debate is sad due to its unique far northern location which would indicate a different climate and therefore different terrestrial organisms to that found commonly in the pre-boundary terrestrial world. Even from an evolutionary perspective one would expect a strong interest and expectation for new species to be discovered in the fossil record in a terrestrial region known to be of unique northern latitudes during the pre-boundary world. I await the research to come, it shall be fascinating to watch.

That was a fair and well written statement. 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. 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. Sure fossilisation is a rare occurrence, but even so we get numerous fossils of one species that just "appear" in the fossil record, and nothing to show where they came from. Even if I excuse the lack of fossils by postulating a unique burgeoning population of the new species in a unique location non-conducive to fossilisation, even so the lack is astounding. Across EVERY species through EVERY geologic period we are missing fossils other than some adaptation into clades that one would expect from creationism.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.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Dolphins breathe oxygen. They would have battled at sea level and were most likely confined to pre-boundary lakes at higher altitude where the oxygen was not toxic. After the flood they would have battled to survive in sea level oceans outside the ark until oxygen levels later dropped.Sure birds could fly to other highlands, but what are the chances of fossilisation if one did not make the crossing? Very small. Its unlikely we will ever find those one or two that did not make it. Other pre-boundary highlands? The Appalachian heights were completely eroded away since and so its difficult to find fossils that clearly originate from those highland sediments. Highlands were not as common in the pre-boundary world.

Well said. Yes the observance of clades would be a natural assumption of both theories. Creationists often acknowledge the diversification of dogs, and humans and cats and some examples like the finch. So there is that implicit agreement in creationism to the concept of clades even if not always clearly admitted.

Umm the same finger points back at evolutionists. We observe the sudden appearance of most organisms fully formed with no ancestral trace back to the LUCA. No evidence exists.And so the same comment applies to evolutionists who take something we do not observe (evolution from a LUCA) and turn it into fact that underpins a theory for ALL LIFE. There is no evidence, yet the theory of evolution is widely accepted. ahem .... hehehe it would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. Why was it so READILY accepted without evidence.For two reasons:
1) Darwin's book was actually very well written and convincing, even though not conclusive.
2) The world was looking for an excuse to deny God. They found it. Until then creationism was a common/natural concept because God was a natural concept. Now the concept of God is regularly mocked.

What is increasingly observed is that the spread of individual species throughout the geological column is wider than expected. The coelecanth, angiosperms, etc etc. Most phyla existed fully formed during the Cambrian Explosion and still exist today. This observance of early fossils surprisingly found alive today, and also of modern organisms surprisingly found fully formed in the Cambrian will continue until the current geological column is seen for what it is. The current geological column is a mere reflection of common widespread conditions. More and more niche environments will be uncovered over time. I am stating the obvious, obviously we will discover more niche environments the more we dig.Looking at the pre-flood world (the world before the known transgression/regression of the PT boundary) the most likely location of niche environments reflecting today's more common fauna/flora is the Siberian Plateau. This is where the lower oxygen levels and a non-aquatic environment were more conducive to the flourishing of mammals/humans/birds/angiosperms. The only reason they have not been found is because no one is looking in the only place they logically would be found. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You say "there are libraries and museums and laboratories stuffed full of evidence."This is where you are incorrect. The fossil evidence shows a variety of species, most appearing fully formed. The evidence shows that the dominant classes of chordata changed according to suitability of conditions, this does not prove evolution, it proves that a class of chordata will dominate when conditions are suitable (that's obvious). The evidence shows occasional adaptation of some organisms into "clades". The evidence shows a shocking number of organisms appearing fully formed with no intermediates.Sure the museums are stuffed full of evidence. But the evidence does nothing to conclude evolution, the theory of evolution remains an unlikely explanation for that evidence.

When you refer to Siberian Paleozoic fossils are you referring to marine or low elevation fossils? My obvious emphasis is the terrestrial Paleozoic fossils from the Siberian highlands, a large part of Siberia being terrestrial during the Paleozoic. Can you name some of the copious Paleozoic terrestrial organisms from the Siberian highlands of that time? My focus is those highlands.

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 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.

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.

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.