The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Are you calling me a liar because I used the word "suddenly" instead of the phrase "seemingly rapid"?I don't see the wording as being that great a difference. Your argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. Evolution is flawed because of the "seemingly rapid" appearance of organisms without intermediates. A weakness in the theory which Darwin recognised.

Sometimes I wonder why evolutionists miss the obvious. Am I loony, or are evolutionists merely missing the obvious???
Ice caps form creating massive landmasses as sea levels drop, this explains a large part of the order of fossils. The fossil record often reflects the transition from marine to terrestrial.Tectonics of the Carboniferous
The amount of land exposed to the air increased during the Carboniferous. This increase is probably due to plate tectonics and to the thickening of the crust. This trend towards increasing elevation of landmasses can be seen by the different types of rock deposits that are found in different locations. The Mississippian period is marked by marine deposits leading to the conclusion that shallow seas covered large areas, but by the Pennsylvanian Period, there was an uneven but progressive trend towards elevation of landmasses and marginal marine and continental environments became dominant. The restriction of oceans to the margins of the continents and the fluctuating sea levels led to the unconformity of the strata associated with the Carboniferous period. These changes to a less marine environment led to the terrestrial radiation that started during the Carboniferous. Terrestrial radiation also occurred because of drying trends that were the result of large glaciers, most of which originated in the South Pole of the time.The amount of land increased during the carboniferous. Terrestrial radiation occurred due to drying trends from glaciation. This explains why we have marine, then amphibian, then terrestrial. That particular fossil order does not indicate evolving, but DRYING.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

There are some intermediates. A few sequences showing genuine adaptation. Other creationists may disagree with me, but I believe in rapid adaptation. Even flies adapt their ability to handle a new season, twice a year. So I do explain the intermediates.The kinds are recognised by the DNA. When most of the genome shows exact matching between breeds/species, (except for the type of DNA changes commonly observed) these are from the same kind. Due to convergent evolution, its often difficult to determine the "kind" in the fossil record without DNA analysis.So I have provided reasonably clear answers to both your questions.

I feel no obligation to prove myself to you, just because of your insulting manner. Any observer of this thread can investigate this further, look into the links I provided and also think through the order of events that would occur when a landmass is drying.The logic is actually straightforward, the link I provided shows that the landmass did dry. Obviously we would then have amphibians and then land animals proliferating when they could not exist in that area before due to it being marine. Did they EVOLVE or did they simply come from another smaller place which was already dry? I maintain they came from the dry place and then spread out as earth's landmass grew, with some very clear minor adaptation also occurring, I do admit to that. Other than Darwin's reasonably convincing and well written book, the logic does not support evolving over radiating.

You say I make up silly things, yet my logic is undeniable. Do animals evolve when water dries up, or do they simply walk there? As I posted earlier, Miller proposes a "boreal cradle" for angiosperms, and traces have been found as per my earlier post. This is then the pre-boundary environment similar to today's environment of angiosperms. This is where most terrestrial as opposed to wetland/marine organisms would have radiated from, Miller's boreal cradle. A cradle of early life not suited to wetlands.And to Jar, that is my answer. Most pre-flood mammals will be found in that unique isolated boreal cradle. They could not radiate out pre-flood due to the wetlands conditions dominated by amphibians and then some amphibuous reptiles before the flood.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I cannot be more exact, because I have no experience in analysing DNA. The closest scientific term to a "kind"is possibly a "clade" but I suspect a clade is wider.

I understand the theory behind the evolutionary "adding" process. You claim that the added genes are usually copies of existing genes which then diverge and and also transfers from other organisms. But the claimed divergence to those copied genes consequently adding fitness is not observed.

I would like to hear more about the "blood clotting cascade". Please provide some more information, thanks.

Not at all. It's perfectly logical that kinds or even species should be recognised through DNA similarities and not outward features wherever possible. So it's not bluster, its logic. And it's also logical that I admit to not knowing much about DNA.So your use of the term "bluster" is a little emotive, which is not exactly "understanding through discussion" as per the nature of this website. Do you use debating techniques rather than a search for truth in these forums?

Hello, I am well thanks for asking, good to see you again. You make some fair points there, nevertheless I was referring to just one aspect of the alleged theory of evolution, that from fish to amphibuous fish, to amphibians, to land animals. I was not attempting to cover every organism and every transition, just that well known depiction which is based on observations of fossils through the layers. My point is that transition is obviously a reflection of a marine environment changing to a terrestrial one. Evolution is as evident in that particular order of fossils as it is when a pond is drying up and then only the frogs are left to enjoy the puddles. Later it dries up completely and a squirrel runs over the mud. Did the fish evolve into a squirrel. No, the squirrel came from a dry region and ran over the dried up surface.

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. I look past the evolutionary terminology at the actual facts presented. So I would advise you do the same. Just because an article I quote uses evolutionary terms, does not mean it supports your view. Evidence is everything, evolutionary terms are mere assumption.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 It doesn't even point slightly to evolution, Darwin just worded his observation very well, and tied it in to beak changes he observed in a finch. He didn't think that one through very well

It has often been mentioned in this thread how the environment before the PT boundary was susceptible to marine transgressions and regressions. Yes humans would not have lived there. They would have avoided it and stayed in a highlands region safe from flooding. There have been signs of human existence pre-boundary, unfortunately scientists do not rush off to analyse these out of place artifacts because their training assumes the evidence is a waste of time before any analysis.Like I said in an earlier post, Miller proposed an "alpine biome" or a "boreal cradle" in the Cenozoic which sustained angiosperms. There are fossil traces to support his assertion. It is in this environment that mammals and humans would have existed like today.You mentioned timeframes, but I disagree with evolutionary timeframes. Edited by mindspawn, : Mentioning timeframes

I have already located the "sanctuary" , it is the Siberian Highlands. The Permian traps which most likely triggered the End Permian extinction covered a vast area in Siberia with lava. This is why there have been few pre-boundary fossils from that region, due to the difficulty in digging through that flood basalt.

Well like I said, its difficult to dig down there. Unless a deep mine hits a good spot, we are unlikely to find anything.
.
Evolution has millions of intermediates missing, to non-evolutionists the reasoning for those missing fossils is an excuse , not facing the facts.You may feel the same about my reasoning, but even so I'm missing less fossils than you are. Creationism is the better explanation for the rapid appearance of organisms, is more consistent with DNA observation, and has less missing fossils.

I don't need to study to know that when the sea dries up, terrestrial animals will then dominate. Do I need a qualification for that reasoning? So Darwin observed the change in fossil type. He surmised evolution in a convincing way. I am just saying there are other ways to interpret the actual data.