The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Why would you need to know that? And why would you need to know that? The location? The scientific name? What for? Some of them, say creationists, are total full-on humans, others are absolute apes. Can't you tell an ape from a human?If you present me with skulls of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans, I will be able to tell the humans from the apes with unerring accuracy and without asking any further questions. So why can't you do the same with this equally clear-cut collection of fossils, which, as we know, has nary an intermediate form in it?

I do understand that. I would guess that it is the adaptation of the original kind into new breeds as one radiates out from Siberia that would be the evidence of where the original location was. I respect the science that goes into recognising those subtle changes as one goes further from Siberia and these type of facts are often neglected and undermined by creationists.You are obviously referring to Siberian marine areas, but it is indisputable fact that large areas of terrestrial Siberia were covered be flood basalts at the end-Permian. This is known as the "Siberian Traps", possibly the greatest volcanic event the earth has ever known. These two links describe it pretty well, as well as a map in the second link showing how the flood basalts were primarily over the land:Siberian Traps - Wikipedia5. Ultimate volcano

Haha I'm not trained. In some cases I cannot tell the difference. That is why I would need the full information. But the purpose is not to test my skills, , but to test any legitimacy in a claimed sequence of fossils. What does your diagram represent? Just some pictures of ape skulls? A dated sequence using radiometric dating? I need more information. To test claims of a so-called evolutionary sequence one would need all the information available, not merely some skulls.

I disagree completely. Even using today's apes, they can be arranged in a continuum. Some apes look less human , some more. Some stand upright, some have a greater skull capacity. So if a continuum exists today, it would likely exist in every age, making any so-called sequence meaningless as one cherry picks an artificial sequence.

quote:

---

I disagree completely. Even using today's apes, they can be arranged in a continuum. Some apes look less human , some more. Some stand upright, some have a greater skull capacity. So if a continuum exists today, it would likely exist in every age, making any so-called sequence meaningless as one cherry picks an artificial sequence.

---

The ability to arrange things in an order does not imply that there is a continuum. I could arrange a shrew, a mouse, a rat and an elephant in order of size but there would still be a clear - and obvious - jump between the rat and the elephant.

Sure one can see some "Evolving" occurring. But whether you clearly admit it or not, the theory of evolution explains the existence of MOST modern life forms via a GENE ADDING process. Most organisms have more unique active coding genes than the original so-called LUCA and so there are nearly always claimed NET GAINS in the number of these genes over time. This process is essential to explain most life-forms according to evolutionary claims. So I agree with most other processes of evolution, and these sequences of adaptation can be seen in the fossil record but net gains of unique active coding genes is unobserved. Thus you are left with an empty fantasy of a theory, with no evidence how most modern organisms can possibly exist.Neither does the fossil record help, because one has these sudden appearances of these organisms, sometimes radiating out from niche locations. So reality does not necessarily point to evolution as the most logical interpretation of the available facts. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Exactly! That is my point. There is as much logic behind arranging some fossilised apes into some order, as arranging some modern apes into some order. Just because one can arrange them using a certain criteria (you used size in your example) , this does not conclude they actually evolved from one to the other.One can arrange modern apes in an order of brain capacity, arm/body ratio, upright stance,or any other feature or any combination thereof. And any given time period will have a similar range of apes so if one is arranging them through the time periods one has an even bigger range to cherry pick from. This is why its so easy to cherry pick a so-called sequence. This does not prove evolution, it just proves that many species exist, and in the past even more species existed before extinctions.Obviously if the changes over time are very clear and gradual, across a number of features, then one has a case. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Exactly! That is my point

---

Your point is that you can easily tell the humans from the other apes ?Then go ahead and do it. Without all the attempts to move the goalposts.

I never said that. I can dispute a sequence based upon ALL the known facts about that sequence. Not skulls. I never said I can look at just a skull and make a conclusion. No-one is giving me any claimed sequence.Normally a sequence will have one or two anomalies in it, for example it may look good for cranial capacity, but then suddenly you see the hip/shoulder ratio has a huge backward jump, showing that a unique unrelated species has been inserted into the claimed sequence.

Not really. Evidence rather appears that there was a full range of apes back then, as is today. So this ruins your chart:https://www.sciencedaily.com/...ses/2007/10/071009212545.htm
""An extraordinary advance in human origins research reveals evidence of the emergence of the upright human body plan over 15 million years earlier than most experts have believed. More dramatically, the study confirms preliminary evidence that many early hominoid apes were most likely upright bipedal walkers sharing the basic body form of modern humans.""Of course the evidence is interpreted in evolutionary terms, but the evidence actually supports my assertion that there was the full range of apes back then, as there is now. This makes it easy to cherry pick a so-called sequence.

Instead of your goalpost moving let us deal with the actual point we are discussing.If there is no clear division between humans and apes then that is evidence for evolution.To deal with that you have to show that there is a clear division. Simply asserting that it is trivial to put a collection into an order does not address this - there can still be clear gaps. So, are there clear gaps or not ?

The clear division lies in the DNA. Sure outwardly changes can occur. Even though I do admit this possibility, I have yet to see a convincing human/non-human ape sequence. If there was some fitness advantage to humans swinging in trees with our arms, there would be rapid convergent evolution in outward shape to start matching some of the non-human ape features (probably in the arms and shoulders) .My main dispute with evolutionary theory is the ability for two species with a common ancestor to then ADD unique active coding genes to the genome that can add fitness to that species. Without evidence of this process, it is mere theory without evidence, to claim humans and non-human apes have a common ancestor despite some of our genes being uniquely different. Where did that uniqueness come from, if observations have never shown evidence for a process like that in the genome. The differences in DNA , although somewhat similar, rather point to separate kinds that maintain most of their genes. These have diversified into various breeds. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

ps my goal post never moved regarding ape to ape-human sequences. If one labels the sequence, I can look up each species on my own. I can see the types of tools associated with that location. I can look at the skull. I can look at the hips and shoulders. I can compare each one to see if the relative claimed progression makes sense. But an un-labelled sequence of skulls , I can do nothing with. I never changed the goal posts.

quote:

---

The clear division lies in the DNA

---

That isn't what the experts say. What is this difference ?

quote:

---

My main dispute with evolutionary theory is the ability for two species with a common ancestor to then ADD unique active coding genes to the genome that can add fitness to that species

---

It's not that there is an awful lot of that and it seems to me that most of it is modifying extra copies of working genes.The important changes are more likely to be in regulatory sequences, modifying the timing of the developmental processes (neoteny being rather relevant to human evolution, for one example)

quote:

---

The differences in DNA , although somewhat similar, rather point to separate kinds that maintain most of their genes

---

Really ? Do you have actual evidence of that ? Or are you just making dubious assumptions as per usual ?

Your original assertion was: We don't need to nitpick over sequences for that. Either there are clear differences or there aren't.