The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Of course, there are plenty of intermediates - which creationists have no reasonable explanation for. There are no identifiable distinct "kinds". The evidence contradicts your flood, and your ideas on dates. The evidence favours evolution quite clearly.

Sometimes I wonder why evolutionists miss the obvious. Am I loony, or are evolutionists merely missing the obvious???
Ice caps form creating massive landmasses as sea levels drop, this explains a large part of the order of fossils. The fossil record often reflects the transition from marine to terrestrial.Tectonics of the Carboniferous
The amount of land exposed to the air increased during the Carboniferous. This increase is probably due to plate tectonics and to the thickening of the crust. This trend towards increasing elevation of landmasses can be seen by the different types of rock deposits that are found in different locations. The Mississippian period is marked by marine deposits leading to the conclusion that shallow seas covered large areas, but by the Pennsylvanian Period, there was an uneven but progressive trend towards elevation of landmasses and marginal marine and continental environments became dominant. The restriction of oceans to the margins of the continents and the fluctuating sea levels led to the unconformity of the strata associated with the Carboniferous period. These changes to a less marine environment led to the terrestrial radiation that started during the Carboniferous. Terrestrial radiation also occurred because of drying trends that were the result of large glaciers, most of which originated in the South Pole of the time.The amount of land increased during the carboniferous. Terrestrial radiation occurred due to drying trends from glaciation. This explains why we have marine, then amphibian, then terrestrial. That particular fossil order does not indicate evolving, but DRYING.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I notice that like every other creationist to walk the face of the earth, you claim to be able to explain the order of fossils without actually discussing any details regarding the order of fossils.To date, no creationist has managed to explain why the order of fossils matches that predicted by evolution. Instead they point to one trend or another while failing to actually describe what is seen and why their order matches that.I maintain that you are a blustering fraud. I challenge you to explain the order and appearance of fossils as actually seen using your ice cap melting nonsense or to be declared forever a loony just as you suggest.

There are some intermediates. A few sequences showing genuine adaptation. Other creationists may disagree with me, but I believe in rapid adaptation. Even flies adapt their ability to handle a new season, twice a year. So I do explain the intermediates.The kinds are recognised by the DNA. When most of the genome shows exact matching between breeds/species, (except for the type of DNA changes commonly observed) these are from the same kind. Due to convergent evolution, its often difficult to determine the "kind" in the fossil record without DNA analysis.So I have provided reasonably clear answers to both your questions.

quote:

---

Sometimes I wonder why evolutionists miss the obvious. Am I loony, or are evolutionists merely missing the obvious???

---

Considering the number of silly things you've made up just in this thread I know which way I'd bet. Although in this case I would suggest that you were irrational and prejudiced rather than loony.

quote:

---

Ice caps form creating massive landmasses as sea levels drop, this explains a large part of the order of fossils.

---

It does ? You do realise that sea levels have fluctuated considerably - there isn't just one drop in sea level and then no change.And you have a quote saying that the changes in sea level were a driver of evolutionary change. Which hardly supports your idea.

quote:

---

The amount of land increased during the carboniferous. Terrestrial radiation occurred due to drying trends from glaciation. This explains why we have marine, then amphibian, then terrestrial. That particular fossil order does not indicate evolving, but DRYING.

---

So evolutionary change occurred due to drying but that does not indicate evolving ? Doesn't that sound "loony" to you ?Didn't you even notice that the article is about the Carboniferous period, which
doesn't even cover the transition to land ? (That was in the Devonian period)

I feel no obligation to prove myself to you, just because of your insulting manner. Any observer of this thread can investigate this further, look into the links I provided and also think through the order of events that would occur when a landmass is drying.The logic is actually straightforward, the link I provided shows that the landmass did dry. Obviously we would then have amphibians and then land animals proliferating when they could not exist in that area before due to it being marine. Did they EVOLVE or did they simply come from another smaller place which was already dry? I maintain they came from the dry place and then spread out as earth's landmass grew, with some very clear minor adaptation also occurring, I do admit to that. Other than Darwin's reasonably convincing and well written book, the logic does not support evolving over radiating.

quote:

---

There are some intermediates.

---

There are quite a lot of them.

quote:

---

The kinds are recognised by the DNA. When most of the genome shows exact matching between breeds/species, (except for the type of DNA changes commonly observed) these are from the same kind. Due to convergent evolution, its often difficult to determine the "kind" in the fossil record without DNA analysis.

---

How exact is "exact" ? Most creationists think that "cats" are one kind, how many kinds do you think they are ? And how would you tell ? And none of this vagueness, if you please.

You say I make up silly things, yet my logic is undeniable. Do animals evolve when water dries up, or do they simply walk there? As I posted earlier, Miller proposes a "boreal cradle" for angiosperms, and traces have been found as per my earlier post. This is then the pre-boundary environment similar to today's environment of angiosperms. This is where most terrestrial as opposed to wetland/marine organisms would have radiated from, Miller's boreal cradle. A cradle of early life not suited to wetlands.And to Jar, that is my answer. Most pre-flood mammals will be found in that unique isolated boreal cradle. They could not radiate out pre-flood due to the wetlands conditions dominated by amphibians and then some amphibuous reptiles before the flood.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I cannot be more exact, because I have no experience in analysing DNA. The closest scientific term to a "kind"is possibly a "clade" but I suspect a clade is wider.

I see self awareness is not one of your strong suits.

I understand the theory behind the evolutionary "adding" process. You claim that the added genes are usually copies of existing genes which then diverge and and also transfers from other organisms. But the claimed divergence to those copied genes consequently adding fitness is not observed.

quote:

---

You say I make up silly things, yet my logic is undeniable. Do animals evolve when water dries up, or do they simply walk there?

---

The quote you produced explicitly identified environmental change as a driver of evolution. Now you may disagree with that, but you can hardly cite it as support of your ideas if you do. Which means that you actually have to provide the evidence and the reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions - at least if you want to make any claim to being "logical"

quote:

---

As I posted earlier, Miller proposes a "boreal cradle" for angiosperms, and traces have been found as per my earlier post.

---

Which is more consistent with evolution than creation.

quote:

---

This is where most terrestrial as opposed to wetland/marine organisms would have radiated from, Miller's boreal cradle. A cradle of early life not suited to wetlands.

---

Assumptions are not logic. Again we await the evidence and reasoning to support your assertions. There is, for instance, no necessary connection between angiosperms originating in a particular geographical area and the existence there of creatures you assume - without evidence - to have been living there.

quote:

---

I understand the theory behind the evolutionary "adding" process. You claim that the added genes are usually copies of existing genes which then diverge and and also transfers from other organisms.

---

Then I can only presume that your misrepresentation was intentional.

quote:

---

But the claimed divergence to those copied genes consequently adding fitness is not observed.

---

Really ? You would deny that the blood clotting cascade, for instance, is adaptive ?

quote:

---

I cannot be more exact, because I have no experience in analysing DNA. The closest scientific term to a "kind"is possibly a "clade" but I suspect a clade is wider

---

In other words you have no idea of what you are talking about. Which makes your assertion nothing but arrogant bluster.

I would like to hear more about the "blood clotting cascade". Please provide some more information, thanks.