The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

Please can you explain exactly how many of those 4 980 000 results are actually proving evolution. We know what the evidence is. Fossils exist. We can interpret that evidence. The interpretation does not suggest evolution. Evolution is a superficial interpretation when the evidence of most organisms appearing fully formed suggests rather that they radiated out from niche locations when conditions were suitable. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : Can't remember how to quoteEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Which particular transition do you prefer as evidence. The so-called monkey-ape transition? The whale transition? Name your favorite and let's see what evidence you have. Please keep in mind I do agree with short term adaptation into clades, some of those short term adaptations I will agree with.

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe you should read Genesis Chapter 1. The first chapter in the bible:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water. 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky. 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. 23 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day.24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.29 Then God said, I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the groundeverything that has the breath of life in itI give every green plant for food. And it was so.31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe sixth day.See that? It's the bible. It is NOT perverted nonsense. If I see that wording as literal, surely as a Christian you would not claim I am perverted in that belief. Perverted for believing the bible as per the bible wording? I think you use a too strong word as a claimed Christian to another Christian. I do not call your non-biblical beliefs perverted and yet you call my biblical beliefs perverted. Interesting. You are indirectly calling the bible perverted.

quote:

---

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.

---

To choose one transitional sequence is the exact point. I agree with short term transitions from an original kind, to prove such a transition is confirming creationism too and gives evolution no advantage. If you have any longer term transitionary sequence kindly show it. If mammalian jaws, kindly post a link or evidence for such a transition. I am genuinely interested in any evidence for this theory of evolution.

quote:

---

That seems to create a rather large problem for you. An insistence on a literal interpretation only leads to the conclusion that the Bible is false since all of the evidence demonstrates that a literal interpretation is not true.

---

You guys keep saying that the evidence supports evolution. Yet I still await any evidence for evolution and am still wondering how you can accept such a theory when most major phyla appeared fully formed without any intermediates from the original LUCA. Unfortunately the evidence does not favor you, you do however have the support of your educators.

quote:

---

How does one "prove a transition" in your eyes? What evidence does it take?

---

This is a fair question. It would take a number of small changes over time with absolute consistency in all features until a completely different organism is in view. If for example various apes over time show slight changes in cranium capacity, upright stance, reduced tree dwelling features, arm/leg ratios, pelvis ratio, reduced feet/toe use etc etc in a logical sequence this would be convincing. If any one feature shows a huge backward jump, then it has to be eliminated from the evolutionary sequence as merely a completely separate species. For example if one claimed ape/human intermediate fossil has all the features that appear to indicate a transition from an earlier ape, yet its proportionate pelvis size is significantly larger than its ancestor, it has to be eliminated from the transitionary sequence to humans. It is an irrelevant species unrelated to the others.

quote:

---

No, the evidence shows all organisms are essentially fully formed, as would be expected from the theory and the evidence that supports the theory.

​

Because of the sketchiness necessary in the fossil record, due to the random formation of fossils, all individuals "appear suddenly" -- we don't see their growth or development.

​

Your phrasing is absurd unless you expect critters that are half one form and half another -- an old creationist pratt that bears no resemblance to evolutionary science or theory

---

Yes one would definitely expect critters that are a transition, showing features in transition from one form to the next. Definitely. This is not absurd, it is EXACTLY what one would expect from evolutionary theory. This concept that all change is hidden is merely an excuse from evolutionists for the lack of discovered transitions. Where is the primitive trilobite that shows some signs of being in transition from some earlier LUCA? One cannot just have a theory and justify the lack of evidence, one needs evidence for it to be acceptable.

quote:

---

How does the interpretation not suggest evolution?

---

Due to the organisms appearing fully formed.

quote:

---

Again, how do you determine if a fossil is fully formed?

---

If there are no preceding intermediates of similar physiology.

quote:

---

Why can't size increase, then decrease, and then increase again within a transitional series? What would evolution not be allowed to shrink a feature?

---

Sure it can shrink too. The point is that any large jumps in the opposite direction of the required transition eliminate that organism from the so-called sequence. It then becomes illogical guess work rather than evidence. The logic points to a separate species if there is a feature that involves a significant backward jump in the expected direction of evolution. In the end most claimed sequences have too many irrelevant species included in the sequence and therefore make the sequence untenable.I find your picture of skulls unconvincing unless you identify the species A to N.

quote:

---

That would be the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography, behavioral ecology, etc.

​

Do you have any evidence for organisms being poofed into existence by a psychopathic invisible wizard who lives in the sky?

---

I am thinking of closing down this discussion in this thread, not because of your complete disrespect for my religion and for God, but because I keep repeating myself regarding evidence for creationism. My point on this thread has been made.Evidence favors creationism because most Phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian explosion without any evidence of intermediates. The reasons you have for not finding intermediates excuses your view, but does not favor your view.

quote:

---

Just like if my father is significantly taller than me and my grandfather, he must be eliminated from the transitional sequence to me; he is an irrelevant person unrelated to the others.

​

Creationist logic, it's so delicious.

---

I wouldn't take it to that ridiculous extent. So this is a strawman argument.Obviously physiology is relevant, your (unintentional?) implication is that physiology is irrelevant when discussing transitionary sequences.

quote:

---

Why?

​

Why can't evolution produce a lineage where size moves up and down over time?

---

In theory it can produce moves up and down. But if you no longer have a transitionary sequence of physiology then what do you have left? Nothing. So a large jump in the wrong direction of a particular feature logically eliminates that particular so-called intermediate as evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

It is a picture of many intermediate forms, and I interpret it as a picture of many intermediate forms because it is a picture of many intermediate forms.

---

I see multiple species. To develop your point , I suggest you make one.

quote:

---

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.

---

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. The jump from LUCA or bacteria or eukaryote to trilobite is just too large to justify the theory. Then we have the same situation across multiple organisms. You have decent logic to keep your head deeply buried in the sand in the face of contrary evidence. 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. I'm not requiring an intermediate between every two intermediates, I require some justification for HUGE changes to physiology without any evidence of any evolving.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.Regarding cousins, all you prove is that there are more and more species being discovered. The assumption that cousins have a common ancestor is mere assumption. In every geological period there is a large range of organisms as creationism predicts, so of course you will find some expected ones in each layer and think you are proving evolution. But science is finding unexpected ones, confusing ones as well. 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. Slowly the squeeze on the evolution fantasy is increasing.