The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

In your eyes the primitive soft-bodied bilaterians, and the cataphract-armored intermediates may be satisfactory intermediates. But to supply evidence for your theory you would need fossils that more closely match each of those organisms that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. That is one of the areas where evolutionary theory fails completely.

In other words you just claim that the strange creatures depicted on some genuine artefacts are dinosaurs, even though any such identification is highly dubious. Those are not "OOPARTS". Or at least that is true of the Namer Palette and the Gobekli Tepe lion.

I see a lot of speculation in that first link but is there any particular organism in the Cambrian explosion that you feel the Anomalocaris evolved into? If you feel it was a precursor to most Cambrian life, then you would need a couple of intermediates along some sort of evolutionary path to make your point. Without intermediates it would be very easy to make the mistake of trying to find a relationship between unrelated species. ie it is easy to make evolutionary assumptions but one needs evidence.

Meaning you have no evidence. If you did you would present it. You know it does not stand up to scrutiny. You accept it on belief alone. Not if they look at the actual evidence. No one disputes that someone found them. What they are, is disputed. They have all been studied and found wanting.
Your lack of faith in them is very telling.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Praecambridium - Wikipedia
Praecambridium sigillum is an extinct organism that superficially resembles a segmented trilobite-like arthropod,[1] though the majority of experts now place it within the Proarticulata [2][3]Wikipedia references:
1. Glaessner, M.F.; Wade, M. (1971). "Praecambridium — a primitive arthropoda". Lethaia. 4 (1): 71—77. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1971.tb01280.x.
2.Ivantsov, Andrey Yu. (2007). "Small Vendian transversely Articulated fossils". Paleontological Journal. 41 (2): 113. doi:10.1134/S0031030107020013.
3. Jump up ^ Ivantsov, A.Y. (2001). "Vendia and Other Precambrian "Arthropods"". Paleontological Journal. 35 (4): 335—343My computer seems to have slowed and so I couldn't reply to all your links at once, they took some time to load. It seems that initially these precambrian fossils were seen as related to trilobites but the resemblance is seen as superficial. ie this species was found in lower layers and died out before trilobites became common in the same areas.

All of my great-grandparents died out before I became common, but to conclude on that basis that we are not related one would have to be some sort of creationist.

No, which is why I didn't mention Anomalocaris.

Your wish is granted.The American opossums are the top two clades, the Caenolestidae and the Didelphimorphia. You notice how they don't fall within the Diprotodontia? And as usual, creationist theory is wrong. Creationist theory has lead you to believe that only a few point mutations separate kangaroos and wombats?Well, you're wrong. There are some rather gross and obvious differences. For example, "Diprotodontia contains species with both the highest (2n = 32) and lowest (2n = 10) known chromosome number for marsupials."So, now that you know that "creationist theory" is utterly, completely, wildly wrong, you will doubtless be reappraising the respect in which you hold that "theory".

I can make no sense out of this post.

I couldn't, either. It's neither here nor there.Soft bodied?Those non-soft bodied small shelly fossils existed before the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists don't like mentioning those.PALAEONTOLOGY[online] | Article: Fossil Focus > Fossil Focus: The place of small shelly fossils in the Cambrian explosion, and the origin of Animals

Easy-peasy. It's Behe at Dover all over again. Without a complete record of all intermediates, we go nuthin'. Standard creationist ploy.

One of the facts that I always found makes Creationism seem so utterly silly (beside the fact that none of the critters mentioned in the Creation myths shows up in the earliest records where you would expect to find them) is the fact that we find critters that come and then go.The Judaic Creation myths are a single short time event, stuff gets created in a literal week in one of the stories and then the God stops and just admires her work while in the other myth most everything is already created except (st)eve and (s)he gets created in one sleeping period. What is common to both stories though is that everything created continues to exist throughout ALL of the time period covered by the fables.Reality though shows an entirely different picture, one that is totally incompatible with either of the Creation myths.Reality shows that (using the terms Creationists seem to prefer) a Kind appears in the record and then disappears and is never seen again and that that process continues throughout the whole history from the very beginning until today. The evidence is that humans have been able to identify and assign names to the different critters.Unless the definition of "Kind" is reduced to the most very basic level (carbon based life form, or kind that lived in the sea, or kind that could fly) the whole picture presented in either of the Judaic Creation myths is completely refuted.There is no "human kind" in evidence over all of history, no "raven Kind" or "Dove kind" or "Cattle kind" or any of the other "Kinds" mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Its not actually a ploy, it's a legitimate requirement. Its not like we expect a complete record of intermediates, we merely require a significant record among many "species". If the intermediates are lacking it legitimately puts doubt on evolution. What we could actually be seeing is various kinds radiating out from their original niche locations when world conditions change.To claim that one evolved from the other is not the only logical conclusion after finding fossils in layers. What about the possibility that various species radiated out from their niche locations when the predominant environment changed? Trilobites did, they radiated out from Siberia.
Trilobite - Wikipedia
""All trilobites are thought to have originated in present-day Siberia, with subsequent distribution and radiation from this location.""
B. S., Lieberman (2002), "Phylogenetic analysis of some basal early Cambrian trilobites, the biogeographic origins of the eutrilobita, and the timing of the Cambrian radiation", Journal of Paleontology (4 ed.), 76 (4): 692—708, doi:10.1666/0022-3360(2002)076<0692AOSBE>2.0.CO;2Evolutionists saw legitimate signs of some "evolving" or adaptation, and have unfortunately projected that into the fossil record. The fossil record rather shows a new species entering into areas where they did not exist before. This makes more sense considering the lack of intermediate forms.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Please define "significant record" and "lacking" in this context. How many do you want?

Define "significant"?Don't you think there's a bit of a double standard here? Look, in the world according to mindspawn:(1) The Earth a mere 5000 years ago was inhabited by great big organisms with hard parts: elephants, rhinos, whales, ichthyosaurs, etc.
(2) And yet not one, none, zero of these has been discovered in fossil form in the present day.
(3) But this is not a big problem for your "theory", tralalala, no big deal.And yet when we come and tell you that we've only found a few dozen or hundred species (WHICH IS STILL MORE THAN ZERO, MINDSPAWN) of the small, soft-bodied creatures from 540,000,000 years ago, you act like it's a major problem.Could you not try to apply a single standard for your expectation of the preservation and discovery of fossils? Er, mindspawn, when he says "radiation" he means evolutionary radiation. (The full paper can be read here.) But that aside, I've got to ask --- would that be the same Siberia where our supposed inability to look at the pre-Triassic fossils explains away how we can't find any Pre-Triassic mammals?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.