The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

You goddamned liar, I have proffered no such excuse. I say: WE HAVE THE FOSSILS. WE WIN. And since we find abundant well-preserved fossils in Siberia, and none of them are those requisite to your fantasies ... YOU DON'T HAVE THE FOSSILS. YOU LOSE.

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

The evidence also shows that there was, at no point in time, of a global flood. There are repeated references in this paper to dry climates, deserts and terrestrial life.What you seem to refer to is a global tectonic event which simply isn't there. Any second- or third-order transgressions would, by definition, not be global.It was pretty apparent to me that the discussion was about minor fluctuations in sea level and not a biblical flood.The only real alternative you have is that the flood was so short that it left no traces in the geological record. This would be highly unlikely for what was supposed to be the most cataclysmic event in the history of the earth. Evidence that you have, so far, failed to produce. Again, these fluctuations are not global. Read the article. While they are going on you have arid conditions and deserts in the North American southwest.Please note that in all of the reconstruction images, there is emergent land. What kind of a global flood is that?

quote:

---

""Sea level changes at Permian Triassic boundary are a widespread discussed subject in the last three
decades and there are still discussions about it. Every theory has facts that seem to be correct. In
comparison to palaeoclimatology a transgression is to be favoured, because of the decline of the ice
sheet in the Upper Permian in combination with a heating. On the other hand isotope studies from
HEYDARI et al. (2001) show another trend, which also seems to be true. In general, there is no trend
that sedimentological analysis gave other results as geochemical, in every scientific field of geology
there is confusion. What theory is the right, isn't presume to say""

---

So the sea level changed with time.And it has been the subject of discussion.Why do we see conflicting evidence?Have you noticed that sea level is rising right now? Is God punishing us again?This has been going on for decades. So, why has catastrophic melting of glaciers and ice caps not already destroyed all life on earth?

Well, you should know by now that any imperfections in a record that goes back billions of years gives YECs license to make up whatever they want.That's reeel science.

I think we need to point out that it is adaptation to the environment that existed at a given time and what the record shows is that those critters that were adapted to that particular environment at that particular time were the ones that passed on their DNA to the next generation. And the evidence shows that as the environment changed some traits lead to continuation while other traits led to extinction. The changes are not towards adaptation but rather those critters that happened to be adapted survived.

Also, unlike the K/T boundary, the P/T boundary is not some line but rather a very long period of millions of years when conditions changed. The Siberian Traps (that mindspawn keeps using) actually developed over a period of a million years alone.AbE:Claiming the P/T boundary is the period of the Biblical flood myths is simply providing yet more evidence that the Bible is factually wrong since at the very most the Bible stories limit the flood to about one years duration, not millions of years.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

It's quite revealing how your statement unintentionally illustrates the difference between actual science and YEC science: Do you see the difference?Real scientists are out there working and gathering data.YEC 'science' consists of just hanging out and criticizing or denying the results.And, no. No one is 'hoping for evidence to support evolution'. There is already plenty of that. They are out there answering questions that YECs run away from.

It is a fact, that many geological processes take a long time. Sure there are catastrophes, but there are thousands of them, local and otherwise. And YECs fail to account for the intervening time between events.The 'Cambrian Explosion' is an excellent example. This has become almost scriptural to YECs and yet we know that it occurred over tens of millions of years.The K/T event probably started a process that took hundreds of years to complete.YECs have little understanding of time and process. The logical conclusion would be that the Bible speaks of something different from what YECs think.

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

Incorrect.We have predecessors much older than trilobites which already were showing a trend from stromatolites to the more complex Ediacaran life forms. The span of time involved makes evolution of trilobites a viable theory. Denial is not a virtue. It is at the level of an explanation of the known data. Considering the more complete fossil record of more recent organisms, it is far from fantasy. Actually, that would be all phyla at all times. Well, if you had a god continually creating new species based very closely on the preceding life forms over four and a half billion years and perhaps you had some kind of a prehistoric genetic laboratory artifact: well, you might have a point.Let us know how your research goes.

Then creationism is falsified because that is not what we see. Then why don't we see mammals with short life spans in pre-Cambrian strata? Why don't we see a single animal or plant fossil in the pre-Cambrian terrestrial strata?Why don't wee see a single bony fish or shark in the pre-Cambrian? Why don't we see a single flowering plant or blade of grass in the pre-Cambrian? Why don't we see any leaves or modern plants at all in the pre-Cambrian? Sorry, but that is just made up. You need to present evidence.You claim that these animals and plants were around in the Cambrian. We aren't talking about one or two species. We are talking about entire swaths of plants and animals. WHERE ARE THEY?? Show us.

We do have evidence for human predecessors, and you continue to ignore them.

We already demonstrated that they aren't fully formed. We have shown you the transitional fossils.

The same applies to humans and other apes. In fact, I would bet $100 that chimps and humans share more DNA than a kangaroo and a wombat. You don't see any common features shared between chimps and humans? Really?

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.