The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Australia's marsupials 'have American roots' - BBC NewsStrong outward diversity exists in two different animals even though these are the same "kind". Having the same DNA markers and same common ancestor.

I explained myself. I don't believe humans evolved from primitive chordates. That then is a strawman argument.

Let me clarify , I was referring to marine conditions.

You say: "As soft-bodied bilaterians, things like, say, Dickinsonia do seem like plausible precursors to bilaterians with exoskeletons, with species with cataphract armor as an intermediate stage."Please post your evidence. what are your sources?

Context is pretty clear. Its referring to breeding pairs of every kind. That is what Noah did. He brought breeding pairs of every kind onto the boat. Some kinds he brought on 7 breeding pairs, some kinds, just one breeding pair. I don't see any clear restriction to only one pair in Genesis 6 and 7.Bring on breeding pairs from every kind.
Sometimes seven breeding pairs, sometimes one breeding pair.
It's splitting semantic hairs to see any contradiction there. The bible was not a legal document.

That argument is from evolutionary assumption. You cannot use the unproven theory of evolution as evidence for evolution. You also need to start giving evidence for your statements. My argument is proven from recent research of Australian marsupials. Two vastly outwardly different breeds can have the same genetic structure. In creationist terms this speaks of rapid diversity of the same kind.

you say evolution has been proved it, but there exists no core evidence for the theory of evolution.Nearly every modern organism has more coding genes than a prokaryote, therefore evolution needs to prove that unique coding genes can be produced in nature. The only evidence I have seen is a dormant gene whose function was re-introduced through a mutation. That is not a unique coding gene.So evolution is without evidence for the sudden appearance of most phyla, and is without evidence for the basic process that explains the existence of nearly every organism as per evolutionary theory. That is quite a lack.Transitional sequences sometimes do exist, but even this merely proves rapid outward adaptation. Most transitional sequences are unproven guesswork that could very well represent the diversity of multiple kinds, rather than adaptation.

Looking at your chart, yes there are geological layers. Yes there are always predominant organisms in each age. Yet some organisms survive in niche areas and the fossils of niche orgaisms will always be difficult to find. This is why the coelecanth was such a surprise, it wasn't seen in multiple layers and was therefore presumed extinct. Yet it was always there throughout the epochs. The predictability of creationism is that increasingly modern organisms will be found in the lower layers, and sometimes ancient organisms will be found living today. This is what we find.I just don't see how some organisms being predominant in certain epochs is somehow proof of evolution. Please explain why your link is in any manner any proof of evolution?

I dealt with your query. I said that there are OOPARTS. Other than that, the most likely place to find pre-flood humans and mammals is the pre-flood Siberian highlands. It's difficult to find them under the flood basalts. But that is the likely location of a pre-flood biome similar to the modern biome. This is where one finds traces of a "boreal cradle"and traces of pre-boundary angiosperms.I have a clear answer. What is your answer to the lack of transitional fossils to explain the sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion.

Fair question. I was hoping the research into the similarities and differences of the possum, kangaroo, koala and wombats of Australia would have enough information to compare their genomes precisely with the American possum with which they share common ancestry. Under creationist theory, we would expect a near exact match between the genomes. The DNA structure of coding genes would be the same between all five genomes apart from a few point mutations and inactive genes since their separation from their American counterparts about 4000 years ago. Thus we have "Kinds" and then some breeds, much like dogs are related.Under evolutionist assumptions, these organisms had a net gain of about 19000 unique coding genes since the original prokaryote, and so one would expect this process to continue over the last 30-80 million years of separation with their American counterpart. One would then expect the American possum to have a significantly different genome with approximately one new unique gene introduced in each lineage for every 30 000 years. ie one would expect about 1000 new unique coding genes in the American marsupial and the same in the Australian marsupials if evolution is a continuing process as claimed by evolutionists.However I cannot find any clearcut genome comparison between the two lineages. I suspect they are too amazingly similar for evolutionary theory, but the information I have does not confirm or deny this.Australia's marsupials 'have American roots' - BBC NewsIn conclusion, the fact that Australian marsupials share a common ancestor with an American possum does not help nor harm my view of rapid outward adaptation. It does help me in my discussions with other creationists but that is irrelevant in this thread.

I have no evidence that would be accepted on this site. So why post my information when I know beforehand my sources are unsatisfactory to you? It is one of those subjective situations like when you hear someone testify in trial. Some will believe, some wont. If anyone reads up about these OOPARTS, some will be very convinced, some wont. It's too subjective to be acceptable scientific evidence. Nevertheless these OOPARTS exist, and many including myself believe the eyewitness reports and other information presented in OOPARTS websites. Some ooparts are merely hoaxes, some ring true.Some of those that ring true to me are the Sumerian seals which depict dinosaurs. The Egypt Narmer tablets which depict dinosaurs. And the so-called "lion" of Gobekli Tepe which looks more like a cynogathus. But there are many , many more of these Out Of Place Artifacts which are not studied by mainstream science.

I can see how some would read a contradiction into Genesis 6 and 7 because there is some ambiguity there. Legal documents are often written in such a way to as to avoid all ambiguity. The bible was not written like that. There is a lot of ambiguity if one isn't really interested in the prima facie meaning in verses in the bible. If you want to object to the bible you will always find the ammunition to do so. Those that truly want to seek out the truth will also find it in the bible.

In your eyes the primitive soft-bodied bilaterians, and the cataphract-armored intermediates may be satisfactory intermediates. But to supply evidence for your theory you would need fossils that more closely match each of those organisms that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. That is one of the areas where evolutionary theory fails completely.

I see a lot of speculation in that first link but is there any particular organism in the Cambrian explosion that you feel the Anomalocaris evolved into? If you feel it was a precursor to most Cambrian life, then you would need a couple of intermediates along some sort of evolutionary path to make your point. Without intermediates it would be very easy to make the mistake of trying to find a relationship between unrelated species. ie it is easy to make evolutionary assumptions but one needs evidence.

Praecambridium - Wikipedia
Praecambridium sigillum is an extinct organism that superficially resembles a segmented trilobite-like arthropod,[1] though the majority of experts now place it within the Proarticulata [2][3]Wikipedia references:
1. Glaessner, M.F.; Wade, M. (1971). "Praecambridium — a primitive arthropoda". Lethaia. 4 (1): 71—77. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1971.tb01280.x.
2.Ivantsov, Andrey Yu. (2007). "Small Vendian transversely Articulated fossils". Paleontological Journal. 41 (2): 113. doi:10.1134/S0031030107020013.
3. Jump up ^ Ivantsov, A.Y. (2001). "Vendia and Other Precambrian "Arthropods"". Paleontological Journal. 35 (4): 335—343My computer seems to have slowed and so I couldn't reply to all your links at once, they took some time to load. It seems that initially these precambrian fossils were seen as related to trilobites but the resemblance is seen as superficial. ie this species was found in lower layers and died out before trilobites became common in the same areas.