The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

And you still have it wrong. Amphibians only appear in the geological record well after the emergence of the early land tetrapods. You don't seem to know what an amphibian actually is.You claimed that the amount of land increased during the Carboniferous, from a previous, swamp-like state. But somehow all the newts, frogs, salamanders, toads and others (including a great many extinct species as well) failed to capitalise upon this idyllic swamp environment for hundreds of millions of years. The first terrestrial tetrapods did not emerge from a marine environment. That's another error. Except that at the point where you suggest the drying took place there are no frogs. Not for millions of years. Really? In the Carboniferous?I am constantly surprised by how little creationists know about biology. I mean, this is a group of people who supposedly believe that life was created for their benefit by an omni-benevolent god and yet you show so little interest in his creations.Another case in point; you seem to have the idea that mammals are ill-suited to life in wetlands. These animals would like to disagree with you. The notion that mammals would have even the slightest trouble surviving in wetlands is so false as to be laughably absurd. And you're forgetting about another major tetrapod lineage; birds. Are you seriously going to tell us that birds were geographically isolated because they are unable to thrive in wetlands? Really? Because that would be insane.So, to recap;

Those are all wrong. Those are a bunch of silly notions you got hold of by desperately trying to make facts that you don't fully grasp fit your theory. If you carry on like this, founding your ideas upon misapprehensions like these ones, you will continue to spout silly gibberish for ever. All of these notions have been busted on this forum, but you don't seem to notice. I suggest that you take the time to engage with some of these issues instead of claiming to have presented facts when all you've really given us is fantasy.Mutate and Survive

Please do also include a photo of a hipo. They actually mostly tend to have to eat on the banks of the rivers and lakes at night. Sleep in the water during the day with their nostrils surfacing. To me they are majestic mammals.

Please don't tell untruths. You telling untruths really reflects badly on some religious people.

I think he may be trying to influence you to incorporate the current state of knowledge about the Cambrian Explosion into your arguments. That would include the fact that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't "sudden" or "seemingly rapid." It occurred over a rather long period of time, almost as long as since the dinosaurs.--Percy

mindspawn claims that the Biblical flood happened at the P/T boundary but that has been proven to be false.First, the P/T boundary is not a line but rather a period lasting millions of years, a transition period. Even the Siberian Traps did not happen in the year which is the maximum time that can be justified by either of the Biblical myths but rather a series of events over about a million years.But wait...there's more.The very first living thing created during Creation Week is found in Genesis 1:11-13

quote:

---

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

​

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

​

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

---

But guess what is NOT found below the P/T boundary?Grass and herbs and trees yielding fruit is what is not found below the P/T boundary.That means either mindspawn is wrong or God is wrong or both mindspawns flood and the Biblical Creation Week are simply myths, fantasy.Forget trilobites, forget humans, forget cattle, forget mammals and birds and lions and tigers and bears and ohmys. The missing grass and herbs and trees bearing fruit are sufficient to refute mindspawns nonsense.

Alas, you prove yourself. These OOPARTS can be shown to not be legitimate by using reason and science. Something you seemingly have no desire to do. All of the items you claim show shown to not be what you claim.
If you can't use science you got nothing.

I don't see your objection. Why is he not right?

As I said the processes have been observed, and thus it is fact that they do occur. Every generation of every breeding population evolves. Again the process of evolution is: Alleles are hereditary traits. Their expression in the phenotype gives you variations in appearances from individual to individual, and in bone structures, which then get preserved in fossils. Intermediate fossils show the progression from one generation to the next, as was shown in Message 830 with the Pelycodus fossil record. Of interesting note to scientists, Pelycodus appears ancestral to primates, and no human skeletons have been found that are as old as these fossils. And again I note that you have not provided a definition for what you think the Theory of Evolution (ToE) IS, and this comment leads me to believe that you are not using a correct version.The theory does not explain origins, it explains descent. This may seem a minor quibble to you, but semantics are important to communication and understanding. What it means is that we trace back from known organism to previous known organism to previous known organism. LUCA is an hypothetical construct, not an actual known organism. The hypothesis is constructed based on the known evidence of the formation of the nested hierarchy of related organism that is the result of evolutionary processes and which is the signature of "macro-evolution" (as defined and used by scientists). Much like the actual physical common ancestor between Chimps and Humans is a hypothetical construct, not an actual known organism (and which in reality would be a breeding population of many individuals and not a single individual). So?Evolution encompasses gene adding mutations, gene altering mutations and gene subtracting mutations. The differences in DNA sequences within a breeding group show this as an on-going process. Some new alleles are modified copies of old alleles creating a "new" allele. If you read closer this was determined to be the minimum number required. So? Try looking up the largest genomes, and see where that leads you. So? As noted previously and repeated several times, evolution can add, subtract and modify genes, so adding genes is part of the package.But not all original genes are necessarily preserved in all species, they don't need to be for evolution to operate as seen in the world today. But that is not a necessary attribute of evolution. The necessary tribute is that additions, subtractions and modifications do not prevent survival and mating. Some of those will be unique to each species. Do they necessarily add fitness? No they just don't prevent it. And again, you fail to provide what you consider the theory of evolution to actually be. I suspect it is a straw-man and not a real usable scientific definition. I have previously compared "kinds" to cladistics and that a "kind" could be defined as any clade without an ancestor. So far there is no evidence of such, certainly not of all life terminating is separate distinct unrelated ancestors all at the same time.Enjoy

Hi Pressie, It would be my distinct pleasure. Taken from the splendid Animals Riding Animals. Personally, I'm rather partial to these beauties; I love the pose as well. It's like they're saying "Hey mindspawn! Check out our vestigial toenails! Aren't they cool?".Presumably the hippo's, turtles and manatees, ill-adapted as they are to aquatic life, must have sheltered with the humans and other pre-Flood mammals in mindspawn's "boreal cradle". It must have been awfully crowded, what with them having share space with all those dinosaurs, but hey ho. No-one said that Flood geology was easy.Mutate and Survive

Me too! I used to live in Melbourne, Florida and used to feed them lettuce and fresh water in Crane Creek. Unfortunately a lot of them become living speed bumps due to careless/clueless boaters.

Long long ago and in a land far far away when I was writing software for marine biologists and managing the computer system there was a mother manatee and pup that would come up to the dock to get hosed down with fresh water and eat cabbage.Manatees have really, really, really bad breath and they do fart in the pool.

Where to even begin?Midspawn requires that all the mammals and frogs and lobsters and crocodiles and ichthyosaurs and so on should have been hiding away somewhere, so if we can't find any examples of them before the Triassic, it's because they were hiding.His excuse for why we can't find land mammals is that they were all in Siberia, and the fossils that they would doubtless have deposited are all hidden by the Siberian Traps. To which we might reply:* The deposition of the Siberian Traps would in fact have annihilated any mammals living there.
* And we can find pre-Triassic species living in the area covered by the Siberian traps.
* These are overwhelmingly marine species.His excuse for why mammals didn't live anywhere but Siberia is that the rest of the world was a big swamp.To this we might reply:* No it wasn't, as proved by geology.
* Mammals live in swamps.
* We do not find in the pre-Triassic those species that do live in swamps, such as frogs and crocodiles.Again, his explanation of why we don't find lobsters and whales and ichthyosaurs in the pre-Triassic fossil record is (I paraphrase) "Er, they were hiding somewhere."In particular, his excuse for why we find pre-Triassic trilobites but not lobsters is that the trilobites could cope with sulfurous anoxic conditions, which would not have suited lobsters.But we know that coral grew and flourished in these conditions.And having got even this far, he's only supplying excuses for why the Paleozoic was different from what came after. How does he explain why the Mesozoic was the age of the dinosaurs and contains no giraffes or elephants or hippopotamuses?How, indeed, does he account for the existence of dinosaurs at all? He has claimed that they all evolved severally from pre-Triassic reptiles --- which apparently all evolved convergently to have the same synapomorphies. The reason why they could possibly do such a thing is apparently left as an exercise for the reader.And then we might ask how the conditions of deposition changed so much since a couple of thousand years ago and today? Because in historical time --- if we look, for example, at the burial of Roman remains --- they have been buried under a scant couple of feet of soil and have not been fossilized. Whereas if we believe mindspawn, animals living only a couple of thousand years earlier have been buried under hundreds of feet of rocks and been lithified.Well, this is what comes to mind right now. I'm sure I could find more things if I looked back at his older posts --- for example, his excuses about ichthyosaurs could do with closer examination.Finally, one more question for mindspawn, which I have asked before. It is more usual for creationists to put the Flood, not at the Permian-Triassic boundary, but at the KT boundary. So, mindspawn, how would you convince such a creationist that he was wrong and you were right --- given that he can employ exactly the same expedients for fudging the evidence as you can?

Sure. Trilobites evolved from 'primative morphology' to 'modern morphology' until they died out (300 million years after their first appearance). More than 20 000 species of trilobites that diverged from the primative 'states' have been described from fossils.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Are those Manatees or Dugongs? Filthy mammals, anyway. Hipos are cuter.Oh, and hipos have more genetic information than manatees.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Until you see their dark side.