The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Hello mindspawn, I hope you are well.I've not been very active at EvC recently, but I have been following the past couple of days worth of this thread and I can't help but weigh in. It's not so much your logic that's letting you down but the "facts" around which you're building it. Almost all of the "facts" upon which you have founded your argument are simply not true. They are misapprehensions based upon your bad habit of weaving narratives around fragments of poorly parsed papers.Case in point; you've got the order wrong here; No we don't. We have marine and terrestrial life well before anything even resembling an amphibian arises. PaulK has tried to tell you this. You don't seem to be taking it on board.The earliest terrestrial plants appear in the Ordovician. That's tens of millions of years before the carboniferous. Their record runs right through the Silurian and Devonian periods.The first land animals appear in the Devonian, but they are not amphibians. They're arthropods; millipedes, scorpions and so on. Amphibian-like tetrapods only appear later, towards the end of the Devonian and do not become common until the Carboniferous.Lissamphibians (the group that contains actual amphibians) do not even appear until the Permian.So your timeline is completely out.This isn't the only error upon which you've based your arguments. Heck, it's not even the only error in this one short post (Pre-Carboniferous landscapes, for instance, were not "wetlands", but rather had mountains and other features), but it is important.You can have the most impeccable logic in the world, but if you hang your theories upon fake "facts" your conclusions will be false every single time. Garbage in, garbage out (or check my signature).I would encourage you to do a more (and more thorough) fact-checking. I would also encourage you to listen a bit more when people tell you that you are wrong in some detail or other. Many of the people on this board have a great deal of knowledge and expertise. Some are professionals in relevant fields. You should listen to them. Even if you are not persuaded of the reality of evolution, you should at least be able to strengthen your own ideas by banishing a few of your misapprehensions and founding your beliefs upon a bedrock of real facts instead of silly things.Mutate and Survive

Not at all. It's perfectly logical that kinds or even species should be recognised through DNA similarities and not outward features wherever possible. So it's not bluster, its logic. And it's also logical that I admit to not knowing much about DNA.So your use of the term "bluster" is a little emotive, which is not exactly "understanding through discussion" as per the nature of this website. Do you use debating techniques rather than a search for truth in these forums?

Hello, I am well thanks for asking, good to see you again. You make some fair points there, nevertheless I was referring to just one aspect of the alleged theory of evolution, that from fish to amphibuous fish, to amphibians, to land animals. I was not attempting to cover every organism and every transition, just that well known depiction which is based on observations of fossils through the layers. My point is that transition is obviously a reflection of a marine environment changing to a terrestrial one. Evolution is as evident in that particular order of fossils as it is when a pond is drying up and then only the frogs are left to enjoy the puddles. Later it dries up completely and a squirrel runs over the mud. Did the fish evolve into a squirrel. No, the squirrel came from a dry region and ran over the dried up surface.

My question is 'where were squirrels living for 200 million years, not detected in the fossil record'.I'm assuming that, in your scenario, humans also lived in some isolated region for half a billion years before they actually appeared in the fossil record.This seems rather dubious to me.

You may notice that all the evidence I quote from is written by evolutionists. Evolution is so blindly accepted as fact, that they use evolutionary terms. I look past the evolutionary terminology at the actual facts presented. So I would advise you do the same. Just because an article I quote uses evolutionary terms, does not mean it supports your view. Evidence is everything, evolutionary terms are mere assumption.I mean, really, if an ocean bed dries up, during the transition phase we would have some kind of mudfish. Then amphibians. Then purely terrestrial. How does this prove evolution It doesn't even point slightly to evolution, Darwin just worded his observation very well, and tied it in to beak changes he observed in a finch. He didn't think that one through very well

It has often been mentioned in this thread how the environment before the PT boundary was susceptible to marine transgressions and regressions. Yes humans would not have lived there. They would have avoided it and stayed in a highlands region safe from flooding. There have been signs of human existence pre-boundary, unfortunately scientists do not rush off to analyse these out of place artifacts because their training assumes the evidence is a waste of time before any analysis.Like I said in an earlier post, Miller proposed an "alpine biome" or a "boreal cradle" in the Cenozoic which sustained angiosperms. There are fossil traces to support his assertion. It is in this environment that mammals and humans would have existed like today.You mentioned timeframes, but I disagree with evolutionary timeframes. Edited by mindspawn, : Mentioning timeframes

Actually, the land mass was relatively more emergent 6 times in the last half billion years. We are currently in a periods of low sea levels. Why would the two be incompatible. Periods of flourishing diversity are often called 'radiations'.There have always been 'dry places' in geological history. So, you are spinning a tale of a very special dry place that is different from any was know and isolated from the rest of the planet. Again, not likely, particularly in the cases of plants and humans.What would really help you out here is having an actual sanctuary for humans since the beginning of life, that has remained undiscovered. I commend your imagination, but the facts do not support it. If you want to live in an imaginary world, that is fine with me. Lots of people do that.

Actually, we are still susceptible to marine transgression. But I don't see why that would force humans to abandon living at low elevations. In fact, that goes against all history. People have always lived on sea shores. Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Just saying that something was so will not cut it around here. This is standard evolutionary theory. It is logical that an isolated population can evolve away from its ancestral population. Again, make good on your evidence. People say a lot of things, but YECs seldom back them up.

I have already located the "sanctuary" , it is the Siberian Highlands. The Permian traps which most likely triggered the End Permian extinction covered a vast area in Siberia with lava. This is why there have been few pre-boundary fossils from that region, due to the difficulty in digging through that flood basalt.

So say YECs. The point being? But you don't even know what the facts are. You talk about species surviving for a billion years in an isolated state only to be released at some environmental change that has happened many times in the past. You have no example of such a sanctuary and you have no explanation of how multiple species could be released at several different times in the history of the earth.Now you are talking about humans only living in high mountains until the P/T boundary.This just isn't passing the giggle test. Terms are assumptions?Sorry, but this was going on long before you came along. It's up to you to learn the science, not for it to adapt to you. As usual, it's a little more complex than that. If you are only looking at a pond, perhaps your scenario might make sense. But in this case there is no data suggesting terrestrial animals anywhere prior to the Devonian. And there were plenty of land masses back then. Base on your reasoning?I suppose that you have some kind of qualifications or experience to be able to say such a thing? You have studied somewhere perhaps?

Good, then show us your research. Are there human fossils or artifacts beneath the basalts?

Well like I said, its difficult to dig down there. Unless a deep mine hits a good spot, we are unlikely to find anything.
.
Evolution has millions of intermediates missing, to non-evolutionists the reasoning for those missing fossils is an excuse , not facing the facts.You may feel the same about my reasoning, but even so I'm missing less fossils than you are. Creationism is the better explanation for the rapid appearance of organisms, is more consistent with DNA observation, and has less missing fossils.

I don't need to study to know that when the sea dries up, terrestrial animals will then dominate. Do I need a qualification for that reasoning? So Darwin observed the change in fossil type. He surmised evolution in a convincing way. I am just saying there are other ways to interpret the actual data.

How convenient for you. With that kind of thing going for you, we can safely say that ignorance of facts can be the basis of an explanation. But we have hundreds.How many do you need? Denial is not a substitute for facts. What 'rapid appearance'?How does DNA support your position?Saying that fossils do not exist is not the same as saying that some are missing. It would seem to me that only one transitional fossil would be suggestive of evolution. But we have hundreds, and more almost every day.

That notion exists in a vacuum. First of all there have always been dry lands. When you lack the facts to support your position, yes. Certainly, if you ignore all of the surrounding data. Your ad hoc explanation does not take into account the effect of multiple marine transgressions for instance, and you contention that the first humans live exclusively in mountainous regions is utterly ridiculous thinking.