The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

The nice thing about DNA is the mutations that crop up periodically. Based on those, you can determine ancient population movements with a high degree of accuracy. And, though perhaps not quite as accurate, you can estimate ages between divergences.This is real evidence, not something you can hand-wave away with your belief about the Middle East.And that naked link you posted--perhaps you could explain it in your own words, as forum guidelines require?

Ah, the multi-regional hypothesis. I learned about that in grad school some decades back. There is more and more evidence being found to support it, but that doesn't help the case you are trying to make. The evidence is all over the place. By analyzing mtDNA patterns a clear picture can be drawn of relationships. Here is one such: The ancestral mtDNA is Haplogroup L, and that is located in Africa. You can trace the changes over time in this chart.

But all of the early "ape-man" fossils are in Africa. Later they spread to Java, China, and other places.None have been found in Siberia.The pattern is clearly radiating out from Africa.

But yet you are willing to tell experts, who not only are trained but have studied this field most of their adult lives, that they are wrong.Typical creation "science" at work.

To those who know the field, those skulls are instantly recognizable!But since you don't know, here is an annotated photograph:

Glad you agree. (Quote mining technique learned from creationists.) The theory of evolution deals with change. It does not attempt to define the origin of the initial organism(s). There are several competing hypotheses for original origins, none of which has risen to the level of a theory. (And no, creation is not one of them.) The theory of evolution does not attempt to define the origin of the initial organism(s).And no, creationism does not fit the evidence. You are forced to argue here that the flood was at the P-T boundary, some 250 million years ago because you can't find a better flood that is more recent. You are forced to argue that modern humans were cavorting around before most dinosaurs evolved, some 250 million years ago. You are also forced to deny virtually all forms of scientific dating. You have no evidence for any of these claims.So, it seems a little odd that you are trying to convince us that creationism fits the evidence when you are forced to ignore the vast majority of scientific evidence.You should just admit you are doing religious apologetics and quit pretending to do science.

That's common knowledge--among scientists. A theory in science is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. That theory must accommodate all the relevant facts and be contradicted by none of them. Creationists use the term "theory" in an entirely different way, generally meaning something like "wild-ass guess." You do realize, I hope, that science deals in evidence? You would rather believe in supernatural "poofs" for origins? And you claim that scientific explanations are "difficult to support?" I'll leave these paragraphs to those who are up on modern genetics. Bones and fossils are more my thing.And dating--you have been ducking the dating issue completely.

Patently false.

You're cherry-picking. You're grasping at straws for anything that might support your religious beliefs.Unfortunately you are forced to ignore all of the many things that directly contradict your religious beliefs.Of particular note is the dating issue. There is simply no evidence for humans and similar critters before the P-T boundary and vast amounts of evidence that humans and similar critters came along a couple of hundred million years later.By ignoring the dating issue you are trying to collapse 250 million or so years into something like 6,000 years. It simply doesn't fit, and all the belief and scripture and wishful thinking you're relying on can't make it fit.The issue of trilobites originating in Siberia (or not) has no bearing on the main problem: You are off by about 250 million years in your dating, and that's not chicken feed! And there is no evidence for a global flood in that entire time span.

Yes we know that.Our timeframes have evidence, yours do not. In fact, the evidence flatly contradicts your timeframes.But you keep ducking the dating issue and stretching 6,000 years to 250 million years just to find some place to park that global flood.And even that stretch fails...

Creationists have been poking at C14 dating for decades and haven't come up with anything that casts doubt on the method.All of these failures cast doubt instead on creation "science."

Are you aware of just how sparse the fossil record was in the 1850s?And do you think nothing has changed since then? That paleontologists have been idle all that time?Its creation "scientists" who don't bother to go out and look for new evidence, not real scientists.

The bible describes this flood during historic times, about 4,350 years ago not some 250+ million years ago.All your musings and mutterings and what-ifs are worthless because you fail to address this one issue.And indeed, the evidence is so overwhelming that there were no humans or any of their recent ancestors around 250+ million years ago that your efforts to compress all that time into a few thousand years are laughable.

Mindspawn seems to be ignoring the dating issue I raised in Message 962.That one issue alone sinks his entire scheme.

Just the hominid line contradicts your belief/claim. We have four or five million years of fossils showing gradual change over time, leading to modern humans.That you, for religious reasons, are unable to accept this evidence doesn't make it go away.