The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Instead of your goalpost moving let us deal with the actual point we are discussing.If there is no clear division between humans and apes then that is evidence for evolution.To deal with that you have to show that there is a clear division. Simply asserting that it is trivial to put a collection into an order does not address this - there can still be clear gaps. So, are there clear gaps or not ?

quote:

---

The clear division lies in the DNA

---

That isn't what the experts say. What is this difference ?

quote:

---

My main dispute with evolutionary theory is the ability for two species with a common ancestor to then ADD unique active coding genes to the genome that can add fitness to that species

---

It's not that there is an awful lot of that and it seems to me that most of it is modifying extra copies of working genes.The important changes are more likely to be in regulatory sequences, modifying the timing of the developmental processes (neoteny being rather relevant to human evolution, for one example)

quote:

---

The differences in DNA , although somewhat similar, rather point to separate kinds that maintain most of their genes

---

Really ? Do you have actual evidence of that ? Or are you just making dubious assumptions as per usual ?

Your original assertion was: We don't need to nitpick over sequences for that. Either there are clear differences or there aren't.

Let's be honest. We have genuine anatomical intermediates. Creationism gives us no reason to expect that, evolution requires them. This is evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

Yes human DNA is different to other apes DNA

---

So is chimpanzee's DNA. Do try thinking about your arguments, please.

quote:

---

You refer to supernatural "poofs" , but if that is what the evidence is showing, that multiple organisms suddenly appeared without intermediates then creationism should be one of the studied hypotheses. Your mention of "supernatural poofs" does not diminish my point about God, highlights my point.

---

Since the evidence shows no such thing, as we have already discussed - plus all the other problems you have with evidence such as dating and the fact that you have a bigger problem with missing fossils than we do - scientists would have to be nuts to accept your views.

quote:

---

Before Darwin few people doubted God. Then Darwin seemed to point away from God. Now evidence is supporting the creation hypothesis and the only reason to dispute God is on an emotional level even when the evidence in facts points to God. It has become "trendy" to deny God in scientific circles, the facts point towards God.

---

The reality is far from being that simple. Darwin undermined one argument for God, but if that was a decisive blow it is only because the idea of God had so little else to support it. The facts do not point to there being any sort of a God.

quote:

---

In the fossil record we see few intermediates, and this radiating out of organisms from Siberia or China as conditions allow with no intermediates for those organisms found.

---

We see few intermediates where we see few fossils. Which is hardly surprising.

quote:

---

In DNA analysis we see the reduction of coding genes over time, but not the adding over time (I'm referring to unique active coding genes that add fitness). So DNA points to fully intact organisms that then reduce the number of active coding genes over time as they evolve, consistent with creationism

---

In reality this is also wrong. DNA analysis shows very little addition of completely new genes but lots of duplication and divergence - including whole-genome duplications - as well as transfers from other organisms (rare in animals but very common in bacteria). And I shouldn't have to point out that doubling the number of coding genes is a large increase in their number.

You do realise that these are all examples of evolution ?

quote:

---

Yes doubling does occur. But are they unique genes, and does it add fitness?

---

As I pointed out there isn't much in the way of adding unique genes to account for. And the frog with a - relatively - recent doubled genome seems to be doing fine, which is good enough.

quote:

---

If we go from ~350 genes in the original LUCA, and all life-forms show additional unique genes to the original LUCA, why do evolutionists deny that their theory rests on a gene-adding process for nearly every organism in existence??? Always you guys distract to other processes of evolution that I frankly completely agree with because they are observed.

---

It seems somewhat hypocritical of you to be making insinuations while misrepresenting our arguments. There is no denial that genes are added, just the fact that the added genes are usually copies of existing genes which then diverge. Plus, of course, transfers from other organisms, as I pointed out.Maybe you should spend more time getting the facts right and less time inventing false excuses.

quote:

---

Hmm you guys need to think that through. And some doubling up is not evidence for a process that is CORE to the evolution/creationist debate, the introduction/evolving of completely new unique active coding genes into nearly EVERY organism since the LUCA

---

Perhaps you would like to support that assertion - bearing in mind the facts that I have just reminded you of above.

Of course, there are plenty of intermediates - which creationists have no reasonable explanation for. There are no identifiable distinct "kinds". The evidence contradicts your flood, and your ideas on dates. The evidence favours evolution quite clearly.

quote:

---

Sometimes I wonder why evolutionists miss the obvious. Am I loony, or are evolutionists merely missing the obvious???

---

Considering the number of silly things you've made up just in this thread I know which way I'd bet. Although in this case I would suggest that you were irrational and prejudiced rather than loony.

quote:

---

Ice caps form creating massive landmasses as sea levels drop, this explains a large part of the order of fossils.

---

It does ? You do realise that sea levels have fluctuated considerably - there isn't just one drop in sea level and then no change.And you have a quote saying that the changes in sea level were a driver of evolutionary change. Which hardly supports your idea.

quote:

---

The amount of land increased during the carboniferous. Terrestrial radiation occurred due to drying trends from glaciation. This explains why we have marine, then amphibian, then terrestrial. That particular fossil order does not indicate evolving, but DRYING.

---

So evolutionary change occurred due to drying but that does not indicate evolving ? Doesn't that sound "loony" to you ?Didn't you even notice that the article is about the Carboniferous period, which
doesn't even cover the transition to land ? (That was in the Devonian period)

quote:

---

There are some intermediates.

---

There are quite a lot of them.

quote:

---

The kinds are recognised by the DNA. When most of the genome shows exact matching between breeds/species, (except for the type of DNA changes commonly observed) these are from the same kind. Due to convergent evolution, its often difficult to determine the "kind" in the fossil record without DNA analysis.

---

How exact is "exact" ? Most creationists think that "cats" are one kind, how many kinds do you think they are ? And how would you tell ? And none of this vagueness, if you please.

quote:

---

You say I make up silly things, yet my logic is undeniable. Do animals evolve when water dries up, or do they simply walk there?

---

The quote you produced explicitly identified environmental change as a driver of evolution. Now you may disagree with that, but you can hardly cite it as support of your ideas if you do. Which means that you actually have to provide the evidence and the reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions - at least if you want to make any claim to being "logical"

quote:

---

As I posted earlier, Miller proposes a "boreal cradle" for angiosperms, and traces have been found as per my earlier post.

---

Which is more consistent with evolution than creation.

quote:

---

This is where most terrestrial as opposed to wetland/marine organisms would have radiated from, Miller's boreal cradle. A cradle of early life not suited to wetlands.

---

Assumptions are not logic. Again we await the evidence and reasoning to support your assertions. There is, for instance, no necessary connection between angiosperms originating in a particular geographical area and the existence there of creatures you assume - without evidence - to have been living there.

quote:

---

I understand the theory behind the evolutionary "adding" process. You claim that the added genes are usually copies of existing genes which then diverge and and also transfers from other organisms.

---

Then I can only presume that your misrepresentation was intentional.

quote:

---

But the claimed divergence to those copied genes consequently adding fitness is not observed.

---

Really ? You would deny that the blood clotting cascade, for instance, is adaptive ?

quote:

---

I cannot be more exact, because I have no experience in analysing DNA. The closest scientific term to a "kind"is possibly a "clade" but I suspect a clade is wider

---

In other words you have no idea of what you are talking about. Which makes your assertion nothing but arrogant bluster.

quote:

---

Not at all. It's perfectly logical that kinds or even species should be recognised through DNA similarities and not outward features wherever possible.

---

Assuming that "kinds" exist in the first place. However, since the evidence (at least) suggests that they do not the assertion that DNA does show clear distinctions between kinds is hardly justified.Accordingly the mere assertion that DNA does show a clear distinction between "kinds" - made in ignorance of any actual distinction - must be classified as pure bluster.

quote:

---

So your use of the term "bluster" is a little emotive, which is not exactly "understanding through discussion" as per the nature of this website. Do you use debating techniques rather than a search for truth in these forums?

---

By which you mean that by asking you to support your assertion - which is engaging in honest debate - I discovered the truth that you could not, leading to the understanding that you were engaging in mere bluster. Which might fairly be called a debating trick and certainly a response that has no concern for the truth.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.