Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data

TB,

quote:

---

Show me how the hundreds of ghost lineages are tested? These ghost lineages have persisted since the 1800s. They are still there in Benton's latest book on vertebrate paleontology.

---

But Benton claims ghost ranges are being filled in faster than new ones are appearing. Regardless, Edge has adequately answered this already.

quote:

---

Edge: One teensy little problem (among some others that we can address later) here, TB. You make the typical creationist error in thinking that evolution should explain what we don't see. Quite to the contrary, it must explain what we do see in the fossil record. And it does.

---

But just as importantly, how do you test the ghost lineages re. The flood? Does flood theory even make predictions as to what is pre, post, & in-flood rocks are? So that the ghost lineages can be applied to those strata in order to see if the gl’s are consistent with flood sediments only? Not that I want to put words in your mouth, but wouldn’t a fundy prediction be that there should be NO gl’s in post flood sediments at all, since it is the flood that allegedly introduces those gl’s in the first place. If not, then the gl objection goes away, surely, since you would be accepting gaps in the fossil record and accepting them to be consistent with common descent (diversification of kinds etc) post flood. In which case gaps in the fossil record, all through the geologic column can be interpreted the same way, ie that they represent undiscovered fossils. I’ve argued with you before about this, you interpret gaps above family level as actual gaps, but gaps below family level are explained as missing fossils. This is hypocritical, you can't have it both ways.Science explains data, not a lack of it. Fossil gaps are consistent with evolution, that is, they provide no contradictory positive evidence. A lack of evidence isn’t positive evidence. However, there is excellent positive evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record; the evolution of terrestriality in vertebrates in the late Devonian-Carboniferous; Transitional forms from basal amniotes to mammals in the Permo-Triassic; intermediate forms between therapods & birds in the Jurassic etc.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

TB,As I recall, we've had this debate before. It concluded with you having "faith" that the flood caused fossil distribution, despite counter examples being made for every proposed mechanism.Have faith, by all means, but please don't pretend that observation of all fossils/taxa is actually being used as evidence. It isn't. It sounds good when you use some examples, but is directly contradicted when taking the whole body of evidence into consideration (seed ferns, shelly fauna, angiosperms, etc).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter,

quote:

---

As I recall, we've had this debate before.

​

I say:
But that's what it is and always will be. An endless story.

---

TB & I have had this same debate before, rather than this debate has occurred before.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.