The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Heissonear]

One worldwide evidence in the sedimentary rock record is how fossil lifeforms show mature Speciation, and zero fossils that disproves Speciation.

In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils. Zero fossils that by morphological change prove evolution - evidence of one lifeform changing into another higher lifeform.

There is zero fossils that show life morphologically changed on Earth in sedimentary environments which show the Grand Picture of evolution of life from simple to complex.

All a paleontologist has is the observable evidence in the sedimentary rock layers srarted as the most simplest life and through time fossils that become more and more biologically complex over time and depositional history.

In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils.

By scientific evidence the fossil record proves Speciations over time.

Get use to it, and start the change that Speciations was produced over time.

In another view, when Earth was Created it showed a natural history of Speciation of life over time, as He would have done if He chose geologic time and natural processes to develop the Mature Earth we now see. A Creation with an Apparent-Mature Age.

 

[Tolworth John]

All a paleontologist has is the observable evidence in the sedimentary rock layers srarted as the most simplest life and through time fossils that become more and more biologically complex over time and depositional history

And couldn't this indicate the inability of these life forms to escape from rising flood water.

 

[pitabread]

nah...

 

[pitabread]

meh...

 

[USincognito]

"mature speciation"?

When the argument is predicated on made up phrases there's no real reason to worry about the rest of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils

Please define what you mean by a "transitional"?

Say we have 2 fossils. One is a transitional and the other is not.
What is the difference between both? What kind of features makes one "transitional" and the other not?

Be specific and clear.

Thanks.

 

[Jimmy D]

In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils.

I had assumed that you rejected the TOE because you felt it conflicted with the Genesis account.

It's surprising that you replace it with another idea that conflicts not only with observations of the natural world but also with Genesis.

I apologise if I've misunderstood you, I found the OP to be difficult to follow.

 

[juvenissun]

"mature speciation"?

When the argument is predicated on made up phrases there's no real reason to worry about the rest of it.

All scientific words and terms are made up.

 

[juvenissun]

Please define what you mean by a "transitional"?

Say we have 2 fossils. One is a transitional and the other is not.
What is the difference between both? What kind of features makes one "transitional" and the other not?

Be specific and clear.

Thanks.

Be more realistic, consider Neanderthals. Are they transitional?
If not, where can you find a "transitional" to human?

 

[juvenissun]

I had assumed that you rejected the TOE because you felt it conflicted with the Genesis account.

What a laughable logic. Can't believe it.

 

[Gene2memE]

One worldwide evidence in the sedimentary rock record is how fossil lifeforms show mature Speciation

Define "mature speciation" please

and zero fossils that disproves Speciation.

How would you disprove speciation?

In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils.

Well, this is a lie. An embarrassing one at that. It's almost as if you're going out of your way to embarrass yourself.

Zero fossils that by morphological change prove evolution - evidence of one lifeform changing into another higher lifeform.

I though you were an earth scientist with greater than 20 years experience? How embarrassing then, that you think evolution is about transitioning to "higher" lifeforms (presumably from "lower" lifeforms) .

Aren't you missing one of the basic concepts of evolution - that change occurs in relation to the environment and situation the population of organisms finds itself located in.

There is no "higher" in evolution - just better adapted to the particular environment. You know, that 'survival of the fittest' thing.

If you actually understood what you're talking about, you wouldn't make such BASIC, SHOOLBOY ERRORS.

There is zero fossils that show life morphologically changed on Earth in sedimentary environments which show the Grand Picture of evolution of life from simple to complex.

(A few) transitional fossils
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

All a paleontologist has is the observable evidence in the sedimentary rock layers srarted as the most simplest life and through time fossils that become more and more biologically complex over time and depositional history.

Yes, that's all they have. Around 3.7 billion years of the history of life, showing nothing but concordance and congruence with our understanding of evolutionary biology.

In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils.

Apply Occam's Razor here - which of these hypotheses requires us to make the fewest assumptions:
1. A Creator God individually created each species, and then subsequently modified each species in chronological order to make it appear that they are descended from preceding ancestral populations. Occasionally, this Creator god has really productive periods creating dozens of new phyla, while at other times it wipes out 75-90% of all biological diversity.

2. Populations of organisms change over time and are descended from preceeding ancestral populations. Dramatic environmental changes either open new niches or wipe out large amounts of biodiversity, creating rapid radiation events.

 

[Shemjaza]

What a laughable logic. Can't believe it.

It's actually a very common justification around here.

 

[Shemjaza]

All scientific words and terms are made up.

Maybe he should have used the phrase "undefined or not clearly defined" instead of made up.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe he should have used the phrase "undefined or not clearly defined" instead of made up.

That is correct.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is correct.

I think his point stands without clear definitions of terms.

 

[juvenissun]

I think his point stands without clear definitions of terms.

Yes, the point in the OP stands.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Be more realistic, consider Neanderthals. Are they transitional?
If not, where can you find a "transitional" to human?

Realistic?
I just asked a question. @Heissonear said "there are no transitionals". When someone says that, I'ld think it's safe to assume that that person has a specific definition in mind of what exactly a transitional is....

I want to know what that poster understands a "transitional" to be. So I asked the question.

If you don't wish to (or can't) answer it, then just don't post.

 

[juvenissun]

Realistic?
I just asked a question. @Heissonear said "there are no transitionals". When someone says that, I'ld think it's safe to assume that that person has a specific definition in mind of what exactly a transitional is....

I want to know what that poster understands a "transitional" to be. So I asked the question.

If you don't wish to (or can't) answer it, then just don't post.

You can not take a question as an answer. You do not think hard enough.

 

[Jimmy D]

What a laughable logic. Can't believe it.

Why is it laughable? I've certainly never heard any other reason to reject it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can not take a question as an answer. You do not think hard enough.

You can not answer a question with another question.

Unless you wish to actually answer the question and explain how a "transitional fossil" is to be distinguished from a "non-transitional fossil", then you should simply not reply.

So, care to explain the difference? Or will you rather continue doing your best to derail and dodge?