The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

If you are just going to spout nonsense, don't bother.Your beliefs and imaginings are not supported by the evidence.First, gibbons and virtually all monkeys are not in the human ancestral line, and second, they indeed did change in the past 20,000 years.And the ark, and any imagined events concerning it, are tribal myths, not suitable for use as scientific evidence.

I would suggest that creationists do not know what the evidence is because their beliefs prohibit them from seeing or accepting most of it. Duh! Not all interpretations are of equal value. Scientific theories must accommodate all the relevant facts and be contradicted by no relevant facts. Creationist "theories" must accommodate scripture and belief, and if there is a conflict with facts or evidence then those must be considered wrong and ignored.Regarding "interpretation," the scientific approach is valid, while the creationist approach is invalid. The creationist's who suggest that all interpretations are of equal validity are lying to you. Creationists' interpretations do not suggest evolution, as they are hobbled by the requirement to conform to scripture and belief which are against evolution. Scientific interpretations, on the other hand, follow the data and evidence, and do suggest--indeed "prove"--evolution.Again, not all interpretations are of equal value.

We don't need to deal with phyla.The past 5 million or so years of hominid evolution, with the various species and genera, are enough.We see a lot of transitionals, some of which gave rise to new species and some of which led to dead-ends.And knock off that 250 million year nonsense and all the flood nonsense. Neither has a place in scientific discourse. Try a theology class for that--and expect a lot of disagreement as there are something like 40,000 christian denominations and sects alone! The reason there are so many is when there is a disagreement they don't use evidence to determine which is correct--they just split. Rinse and repeat.

We have that. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you was you wouldn't accept it if I did. So? It may have to be eliminated as a human ancestor but that does not show it is not a transitional between an earlier and a later species. We have those too. Not so. It may be irrelevant to the human line, but it may still be a transitional and it may still show evolution in action.You somehow don't seem to realize that the theory of evolution applies across the board, to species that led to modern humans and to all the other critters out there, extinct and extant.

What "sequence?" There is no "sequence" in the manner which you propose because there is no single goal to which evolution aspires. Each species changes gradually in the way it needs to in order to survive, and many species in fact don't survive--either they changed the wrong way or didn't change in time. Whatever. Over billions of years most species have not survived, but even many of thos have left descendant species.Your point is useless in trying to disprove evolution. So says a creationist, who relies on ancient tribal myth instead of facts and evidence.

Might I suggest that the disrespect comes from your practice of introducing faith and belief into a scientific thread as if either were evidence? And refuted.

Evolution is largely a reaction to changing environmental conditions, with a lot of founders effect, accidents, and pure good or bad luck thrown into the mix.Each species will react as circumstances apply, some will thrive for a while and others will go extinct. All of this is in keeping with the theory of evolution.You simply can't expect to take some species that evolve away from a successful line (as judged millions of years later) as evidence that evolution didn't occur. It is rather the opposite.

The evidence does not support that view.We have transitionals for a large number of species, including modern humans.

You've missed a lot. But, here is a quick partial summary. Try the link for a lot more:http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/...lution/origins-of-man.htmlEarly - Late HomininsEarly hominins first appear in the fossil record approximately 4 million years ago
Collectively, they were very ape-like in structure - with a prognathic profile and longer arms, they were likely facultative bipeds (arms used for support)
They had large jaws, broad molars and thicker enamel, indicating a diet that was heavily dependent on nuts, grains and hard fruits
They had a relatively small cranial capacity (roughly 300 - 450 cm3), indicating smaller brains
Ardipithecus ramidus (~4.4 m.y.a) is one of the oldest fossils and was very ape-like in appearance, with wider zygomatic arches and a sagittal crest
Australopithecus afarensis (~4.0 m.y.a) and A. africanus (~2.5 m.y.a) had non-opposable big toes and were likely the first bipeds (facultative)Early HomoEarly Homo species first appear in the fossil record approximately 2 million years ago
Compared to Australopithecines, they had a marked increase in brain size (cranial capacity ~ 700 - 1,000 cm3) and reduced sexual dimorphism
They had a reduction in the size of their teeth, indicating a change in diet and further skeletal changes to support a more erect posture
H. habilis (~2.0 m.y.a) are thought to be among the first to use stone (Oldowan) tools, with shortened digits suggesting the use of precision grip
H. erectus (~1.6 m.y.a) was the first to widely distributed thoughout the Old World, may have used fire and possessed rudimentary languageLate HomoLate Homo species first appear in the fossil record under 1 million years ago (~800,000 y.a)
These species have a significantly increased cranial capacity (~1,300 - 1,500 cm3) and demonstrate advanced cultural and technological practises
H. heidelbergensis (~600,000 y.a) were among the first to bury their dead and are thought to be a direct ancestor of H. sapiens
H. neanderthalensis (~200,000 y.a) used Mousterian (flint-flake) tools and likely co-existed at the same time as H. sapiens
H. floresiensis (~80,000 y.a) has been nicknamed 'hobbit' for its small size; debate exists as to whether it is a separate species or a primitve human with major genetic deformities
At some point between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, a population of early humans crossed the morphological threshold to become modern humans: Homo sapiens sapiens You wanted a continuous sequence, here you have it.

As I've noted elsewhere:Creationist John Woodmorappe, in his The Non-Transitions in ‘Human Evolution’on Evolutionists’ Terms claims that the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis took place after the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.The implications of this are huge: Woodmorappe’s perceived change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now a creationist has not only proposed such a change, but sees it operating several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!

Right. I'm sure he's keeping his religious beliefs out of the classroom, too.