The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Its not actually a ploy, it's a legitimate requirement. Its not like we expect a complete record of intermediates, we merely require a significant record among many "species". If the intermediates are lacking it legitimately puts doubt on evolution. What we could actually be seeing is various kinds radiating out from their original niche locations when world conditions change.To claim that one evolved from the other is not the only logical conclusion after finding fossils in layers. What about the possibility that various species radiated out from their niche locations when the predominant environment changed? Trilobites did, they radiated out from Siberia.
Trilobite - Wikipedia
""All trilobites are thought to have originated in present-day Siberia, with subsequent distribution and radiation from this location.""
B. S., Lieberman (2002), "Phylogenetic analysis of some basal early Cambrian trilobites, the biogeographic origins of the eutrilobita, and the timing of the Cambrian radiation", Journal of Paleontology (4 ed.), 76 (4): 692—708, doi:10.1666/0022-3360(2002)076<0692AOSBE>2.0.CO;2Evolutionists saw legitimate signs of some "evolving" or adaptation, and have unfortunately projected that into the fossil record. The fossil record rather shows a new species entering into areas where they did not exist before. This makes more sense considering the lack of intermediate forms.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

All fossils are consistent with creationism. So I do not see why you think any fossils are more consistent with evolution than creationism. Could you cite some examples please.I do believe in rapid outward transformation, so I'm not as careful to dispute any sequence as other creationists, but some big claims like apes to humans I do definitely dispute. Many so-called evolutionist sequences are incorrect on closer analysis of the sequence. This problem is particularly prevalent with human sequences where the fossils are normally full fledged apes or full fledged humans, and yet intermediates are claimed. Various breeds of apes and races of humans are arranged into a false evolutionary sequence that looks correct only superficially.If you like you can use one of your human sequences to prove evolution and we can analyse the physical attributes of them to see if evolutionists have any legitimate case for the evolution of humans. Any evidence for evolution will be appreciated.

Haha point taken. Yes legally it was very much an eye for an eye. It was definitely a set of legals laws on how to deal with various types of crimes. Especially Leviticus and Deuteronomy. So I do stand corrected. However most of the bible including Genesis was not a legal document.

Unfortunately the existence of "possible precursor life-forms" isn't sufficient to justify a theory like evolution. If these creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record as world conditions change, this rather points to them already being in existence in another location and radiating out from there when world conditions suit them. This appears to be the case with trilobites radiating out from Siberia.So the evidence does not point to any evolving, but points to organisms already existing and radiating out from niche locations as new conditions become more suitable for that organism. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You are obviously correct. Kindly forgive me for my occasional lapses in terminology, I'm not as used to discussing this subject as you guys. I appreciate the correction, it's good to get the terminology correct so that we are all on the same page. I'm still learning

I must admit that this post (post 758) had me questioning myself for a few minutes. I was wondering how its possible for so many changes to occur in about 4500 years since the flood, believing this is only enough time for a few point mutations and minor changes to the DNA. In my naivete I failed to realise that in fact organisms do often change their chromosome number through fusion or polyploidy. As long as the number of active genes remains the same, this does not cause much damage to the organism.Is there any evidence of additional unique active coding GENES in marsupial divergence over time? At evolutionary rates we should expect more than a thousand additional unique active coding genes since the American possum diverged from the Australian marsupials? That would really prove the theory of evolution. Any lack thereof will bring into question why evolutionist claims of an evolutionary process of net gains in unique active coding genes over time would have suddenly STOPPED as soon as it can be measured.

Not to delve into every one of those fossils, but archosaurs come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The dicynodont was a Permian archosaur that is often depicted with similar features to the Triceratops, albeit less dramatic. Horns and a protective skull. Similarly Procolophonids have horns and a protective skull. So I don't regard the rapid adaptation as far-fetched. The mega-sizes are the biggest difference.The Dimetrodon was a pre-flood reptile with a sail , a similar feature to certain post-flood dinosaurs.So the post-flood adaptation of these various reptiles to terrestrial habits was not that dramatic. Size changes however were dramatic.And I would have no problem with rapid ape adaptation as well. Sure apes could have changed since creation week, humans certainly did. There are a variety of races from those two individuals so there is no reason for me to have a problem with rapid adaptation when its staring creationists in the face (pygmies, Dutch, Japanese, Neanderthals etc) . My main problem with the theory of evolution is the unproven claims that there are net gains of unique active coding genes over time, which is how evolutionists explain most modern species. This theory is not observed.

If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on? The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils. Even if you have a good reason for your lack of intermediates , this just justifies not immediately discarding evolutionary theory. It should be immediately discarded based on the lack of evidence, but yes, you have an excuse not to discard it because you have an excuse for the lack of intermediates. How that FAVOURS evolution, is beyond me. The evidence favors sudden appearance without intermediates.Sure there are some minor transitions recorded elsewhere in the fossil record, adaptation does exist. However these are particularly lacking closer to creation week, in the Cambrian Explosion.

Before I tackle those skulls in your post, are they in a claimed sequence? I'm only interested in so-called evidence of how some common ancestor ape evolved into human apes. And I would need more information, I would need EVERY claimed detail about those skulls if available. Arm length, skull capacity, scientific name, location, context. I definitely will not be able to answer you on skulls alone.The problem with any ape sequence is that every layer has a range of apes, including today. So its easy to cherry pick the correct looking ones, just as it would be easy today to arrange modern skeletons into an order of least human looking ape to most human looking ape. That obviously does nothing to prove any evolution, it just proves that there exists a range of species at any given moment in time.

I do understand that. I would guess that it is the adaptation of the original kind into new breeds as one radiates out from Siberia that would be the evidence of where the original location was. I respect the science that goes into recognising those subtle changes as one goes further from Siberia and these type of facts are often neglected and undermined by creationists.You are obviously referring to Siberian marine areas, but it is indisputable fact that large areas of terrestrial Siberia were covered be flood basalts at the end-Permian. This is known as the "Siberian Traps", possibly the greatest volcanic event the earth has ever known. These two links describe it pretty well, as well as a map in the second link showing how the flood basalts were primarily over the land:Siberian Traps - Wikipedia5. Ultimate volcano

Haha I'm not trained. In some cases I cannot tell the difference. That is why I would need the full information. But the purpose is not to test my skills, , but to test any legitimacy in a claimed sequence of fossils. What does your diagram represent? Just some pictures of ape skulls? A dated sequence using radiometric dating? I need more information. To test claims of a so-called evolutionary sequence one would need all the information available, not merely some skulls.

I disagree completely. Even using today's apes, they can be arranged in a continuum. Some apes look less human , some more. Some stand upright, some have a greater skull capacity. So if a continuum exists today, it would likely exist in every age, making any so-called sequence meaningless as one cherry picks an artificial sequence.

Sure one can see some "Evolving" occurring. But whether you clearly admit it or not, the theory of evolution explains the existence of MOST modern life forms via a GENE ADDING process. Most organisms have more unique active coding genes than the original so-called LUCA and so there are nearly always claimed NET GAINS in the number of these genes over time. This process is essential to explain most life-forms according to evolutionary claims. So I agree with most other processes of evolution, and these sequences of adaptation can be seen in the fossil record but net gains of unique active coding genes is unobserved. Thus you are left with an empty fantasy of a theory, with no evidence how most modern organisms can possibly exist.Neither does the fossil record help, because one has these sudden appearances of these organisms, sometimes radiating out from niche locations. So reality does not necessarily point to evolution as the most logical interpretation of the available facts. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Exactly! That is my point. There is as much logic behind arranging some fossilised apes into some order, as arranging some modern apes into some order. Just because one can arrange them using a certain criteria (you used size in your example) , this does not conclude they actually evolved from one to the other.One can arrange modern apes in an order of brain capacity, arm/body ratio, upright stance,or any other feature or any combination thereof. And any given time period will have a similar range of apes so if one is arranging them through the time periods one has an even bigger range to cherry pick from. This is why its so easy to cherry pick a so-called sequence. This does not prove evolution, it just proves that many species exist, and in the past even more species existed before extinctions.Obviously if the changes over time are very clear and gradual, across a number of features, then one has a case. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I never said that. I can dispute a sequence based upon ALL the known facts about that sequence. Not skulls. I never said I can look at just a skull and make a conclusion. No-one is giving me any claimed sequence.Normally a sequence will have one or two anomalies in it, for example it may look good for cranial capacity, but then suddenly you see the hip/shoulder ratio has a huge backward jump, showing that a unique unrelated species has been inserted into the claimed sequence.