The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

You and Faith should have a discussion. Unless you consider cell division as the birth of new bacteria, bacteria today are as old as creation, which is a pretty long lifespan.--Percy

I understand. Maybe you meant short generation times rather than short lifespans? In either case, it wasn't clear why "obviously" they would have been the earliest fossils after creation? If it's because they would have been the first to die, that's why I mentioned that bacteria don't really have lifespans - they don't die of old age.--Percy

Hi Mindspawn,I'm just catching up in the thread and came across this comment that no one responded to: According to the Wikipedia article on Marsupials, this isn't true. Where does your information come from?--Percy

I think he may be trying to influence you to incorporate the current state of knowledge about the Cambrian Explosion into your arguments. That would include the fact that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't "sudden" or "seemingly rapid." It occurred over a rather long period of time, almost as long as since the dinosaurs.--Percy

I'm about a hundred messages behind, but I keep seeing the same incorrect claims over and over again, so I thought I'd reemphasize a few important points that Mindspawn keeps misunderstanding.

• Except for fossils of species that went extinct, all fossils are transitional fossils. Transitionals actually exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree. At a relatively fine level of detail the term intermediates might be more appropriate, for example the transition from Australopithicus afarensis to Homo sapiens with Homo erectus as intermediate, while at a much more broad level of detail dinosaurs are transitional between reptiles and birds.
  ​
• The validity of evolution does not depend upon the completeness of the fossil record in terms of transitionals and intermediates. Evolution became accepted theory while the fossil record was far less complete than it is today, and while each new fossil discovery has the potential to invalidate evolution (e.g., a Cambrian mammal), it never happens. Evolution as an explanation for life's history was accepted even before the mechanisms of heredity (also fully supportive of evolution) were understand.
  ​
• The nested hierarchy couldn't exist were the fossils not scattered about the geological record in a very particular and specific way, the record of change never violating the hierarchy.
  ​
• Evolutionary change is toward adaptation and not in any particular direction, such as larger or faster.
  ​
• All fossils are of "fully formed" species. There has never been a species that wasn't "fully formed."

--Percy

Yes, environmental change will select among existing adaptations, but that's just selection by itself. Evolution includes not just selection but descent with modification, and those together are what produce new adaptations.--Percy

I understand what you're saying, but I guess I'd disagree with that way of saying it. Evolution isn't towards any specific goal, but it is definitely toward adaptation. Changing environments produce adaptations to the changes. We might not know what the adaptations will be in advance, but we know that in general change will be toward better adaptation.It's mutations that are random with respect to fitness and are selected for or against. A change caused by mutations is not an adaptation until the change is selected for, and a change that is selected against is not an adaptation at all.--Percy

I'm not sure that confusion doesn't still exist in Mike's mind about what we're truly saying. First he should understand what we're not saying. While there exists accepted scientific terminology that can be very helpful for clarity, we're not saying that terms of non-scientific origin are off limits to scientists, and certainly not that mere use of a term indicates some form of acceptance of the associated concepts.Dr A's original point way way back was that the idea of "hydrological sorting" as the motive force behind creation of most of the geological layers of Earth originated with creationists. Later this was somehow confused with the term "hydraulic" in the context of efficiency of creatures swimming through water. Mike must understand that these are two very different things.--Percy

Hi Mike,I'm a participant not a moderator in this thread so I can't offer you any kind of relief, but I will try to make a few helpful comments.First, you do have a tendency towards self-congratulation while in the midst of significant gaffes. Moderators cannot tell people, "Please ignore significant gaffes expressed with conceit." It would be equivalent to asking people to ignore the elephant in the middle of the room. I know Dr A's responses are full of sarcasm and mockery, and I know this must seem like it's against the forum guidelines, and it would be if the gaffes were occasional and then corrected, but they're persistent and frequent and often beyond belief. Dr A shouldn't be treating you this way, but you shouldn't be relentlessly irrational and illogical. When several attempts at explanation all fall victim to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, what is one's next course? Another patient explanation?Second, I know you can't agree you're being irrational and illogical. After all, how could it be thus after all the effort you've put into understanding logical fallacies and reasoning through the evidence logically? I can't answer that question, but your way of looking at evidence has taken you to some pretty strange and logically inconsistent places.Lastly I'd suggest just making sure your arguments are always consistent with reality. That won't make all your arguments right, but it will greatly reduce the number and severity of the errors.--Percy

Obviously. Is that really what you meant to say? I didn't express it that way, but some people calling themselves creationists claim it was a significant factor, like This Article at Answers in Genesis. Reality, Mike.Other creationists make different claims, we understand that. Yes, you've repeated this many times, but why are you including your incorrect argument about Gould? That makes no sense.In any case, you continue to miss the important point. It isn't the term that's important, it's the concept. There *is* such a thing as hydraulic sorting (for the creationist slant see Experiments in Stratification over at ICR). I think "hydrological sorting" is probably same thing, but who knows. But whatever you call it, this sorting as an explanation for the order of geological layers and the placement of fossils within them is a creationist idea that lacks real world support. When scientists use one of these terms to refer to this idea they are not likely offering support for it. In all likelihood they are arguing against.--Percy