The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

In a few thousand years? You really think that evolution is that powerful?And again I have to ask why no-one noticed. The Ancient Egyptians apparently didn't notice that they were sharing Egypt with Aegyptosaurus, Bahariasaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Deltadromeus and Spinosaurus. You'd think they'd have noticed something like this, but no ... The ancient cultures of Mesopotamia didn't notice all the ichthyosaurs that were swimming about, or indeed the fact that they were underwater.The ancient Chinese managed to overlook the fact that they were hanging out with (for example) Qianzhousaurus sinensis, a bipedal predator which was 29 feet long and weighed 1800 pounds. You'd think the way it kept eating them would be a clue, but no ... Yes you are: your excuse for the lobsters has nothing in common with your excuse for the humans which has nothing in common with your excuse for the dinosaurs. But remember, we also have (for example) Permian coral and Permian fish, neither of which thrive in anoxic sulfuric environments. So why don't we find lobsters alongside them? Well, according to you there must have been enough modern environments to sustain every modern group, and indeed all the Mesozoic groups too. And yet in hundreds of years of fossil hunting no-one's found one such environment? I agree it would be unreasonable to ask for every one of them, but you can't find any of them, not one Paleozoic place where mammals lived, or birds, or crocodiles, or flowering plants, or lobsters, or scleractinian coral, or teleost fish ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you believe you can prove this, start another thread. The world's scientists will I am sure be awestruck by your profound insights into the science of biochemistry, which you have never studied, and the history of the early Earth, of which you know almost nothing. Well, given that we have lots and lots of intermediate forms, and you have no, zilch, zip, bupkis, zero of these Paleozoic mammals, or birds, or flowering plants, etc, that we ought to have if you were right, yeah, the advantage is with us. Y'see, lots is more than nothing at all. "A wizard did it" is not a theory and does not appear to be valid.

Scientists would say that you made that up. The mammals you refer to are Eocene, while the earliest mammals are late Jurassic; and the fact that the scientists say that "many of the fossil species are completely unlike any other fossil mammals we’ve ever seen" shows that they did not in fact spread, or at least that we have as yet no evidence whatsoever that they did, because otherwise these forms would have been seen elsewhere. 'Cos of what "spread" means.

So how much time are you allowing for the evolution of the dinosaurs from more basal archosaurs?

How does the Ark story explain all the other unique post-Paleozoic faunas?For example, the unique Triassic fauna of the Chinle Formation in New Mexico. The unique Cretaceous fauna at Wanderfeld IV in South Africa? The present unique fauna of Australia?

And we can reply: "We have lots of intermediate forms. You do not have a single one of the pre-PT birds or mammals or crocodiles or flowering plants or teleost fish that your hypothesis would predict. Score --- Us: a zillion; You: 0." So you're not so much a Young Earth Creationist as a Really Fast Evolutionist?To what date do you assign the origin of humans? Narrow it down for me, are we talking AD or BC? To begin with, everything has ancestors. What are you suggesting, that at some point some trilobite or something suddenly appeared in a puff of magic ... ? ... oh, wait, that is what you're suggesting, isn't it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet you have neither observed nor proved that the evolution of all the dinosaurs just took a couple of thousand years. No, of course not.Where did you get that idea? And I think it's a major flaw, especially since by contrast we have all these intermediate forms.

As soft-bodied bilaterians, things like, say, Dickinsonia do seem like plausible precursors to bilaterians with exoskeletons, with species with cataphract armor as an intermediate stage.

Well, they're more primitive than the Cambrian fauna, which acquired hard parts, this being the definition of the Cambrian explosion.

I agree that organisms with a common ancestor can end up very dissimilar. For example: you and an oak tree have a common ancestor and yet are markedly different.What I don't see is why you wish to appeal to this fact, rather than, for example, vociferously denying it.

We proved it. No-one told you?But in any case, you're missing my point. You, not I, pointed to these marsupials and admitted that they were very different, and admitted that they have a common ancestor. I am of course glad that you admit this, but puzzled to know why you think it's a point in your favor.

Wrong.Remember all those fossils we have? We win.(If you want to be wrong about genetics, start a new thread.) By "outwards adaptation" you mean "evolution", yes?

Why?Is that also where we'd find all the dinosaurs and the teleost fish and the lobsters and the scleratinian corals? As something you made up. We have the primitive soft-bodied bilaterians, and we have the cataphract-armored intermediates between them and the full-on Cambrian explosion.

You could start here ...Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Major Events in the History of Life - Google Books

But I see that you have not answered my question. Let me repeat it. You admit, apparently, that koalas, kangaroos, possums and wombats evolved from a common ancestor. Good. But what do you hope to gain by doing so? When confronted with this question, you started talking about how there's no evidence for evolution. Well, according to your own claims, there is for the evolution of koalas, kangaroos, possums and wombats AND ALL THE DINOSAURS. Apparently all that divides us now is that you overestimate how powerful evolution is and so underestimate how long it takes.