What proof would you need?

[CTD]

I have made no such presumption. I am simply asking why bacteria not changing into something that isn't bacteria during the historical period of observation invalidates the observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time.

Oh goodness! Has someone claimed allele frequencies don't change?

Permit me to join you in laughing! Please permit all creationists around the world to join you as well. Can you link me to the claim? I should like to bookmark such folly for future entertainment.

 

[razeontherock]

How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.

It is YOU who are moving goalposts! This particular tangent started with the ridiculous assertion that we have observed macro-evolution. (Nobody here is contesting what you state here.)

What you are talking about deals with the theories of evolution, not the fact of evolution.

As are you. Primordial ooze to modern man is theoretical, not factual. I won't pretend to draw a boundary line defining macroevolution, but this is one side of that line, while bacteria still being bacteria is on the other.

nested hierarchy, which evolution supports with much evidence, and which intelligent design supports and/or opposes with exactly no evidence.

And to think, it was you who in this thread used the words canard and stupid.

At no point did I say anything of the kind. I simply stated that change in allele frequency has been observed within populations over time.

So then you're willing to admit macro evolution is not observed, and therefore not factual? Pretty sure that's all anybody is going for here. (I'll even grant you that it's theoretically plausible.)

 

[Astridhere]

How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.
I am not changing goal posts. Rather you are calling goal posts matchsticks. I have stated there is no problem with the fact that kinds adapt. That is all allele fequency speaks to. Nothing more. You simply cannot assimilate this information.
Change in allele frequency over time is observed in populations from petri dish to prairie. Therefore, evolution occurs. This is not difficult to understand, is it?
Yes and again you are offering no evidnce for macroevolution other than to extrapolate that a bird that changes beak size means they were a reptile, which is nonsense.


What you are talking about deals with the theories of evolution, not the fact of evolution.
Evolution is not a fact other than in the minds of those that think that mysteries and inconsistencies are science.

Define hugely.
30% that is closer to the comparative truth as opposed to the 1%, no that changed to 2%, no that changed to 5%. That is what I mean by huge comparative diferences. 30% is a huge difference and they haven't found all the differences yet and still the 30% does not reflect all genomic differences eg gene expression and function, different hot spots, difference genome surface structure, 10% difference in genome size.
.
Nevermind. Regardless of your definition, humans and chimps are more closely related than any other species within the nested hierarchy, which evolution supports with much evidence, and which intelligent design supports and/or opposes with exactly no evidence.
I will mind because you keep speaking to allele fruquency as being some sort of evidence of macroevolution. It is not. It is an example of microevolution that is specualted and wished into macroevolution eventually....and THIS IS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY ALLELE FREQUENCY CHANGES.. GET IT.



At no point did I say anything of the kind. I simply stated that change in allele frequency has been observed within populations over time. Please stop trying to turn my arguments into pretty little strawpeople.
Good. The stop going on about it. We agree. Allele frequency does not demonstrate macroevolution and macroevolution has not been demonstrated let alone observed. Changes in allele frequency simply demonstrates that my alleles may change as I adapt to a colder climate while I live and age, and how my grand daughter may uptake certian traits from her mum, but not how an ape became human.

In other words, change in allele frequency within the fruit fly population over time. Cool. Glad you've come around.
Yeah, but it did not even fix in a population which is REQUIRED by your theories and highly unlikely to occur in the real world. It just happens in predetermined algorithmic world..

"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."

Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution

How many more times do we have to say 'There is no magical roadblock on the continuum of change in allele frequency' before you understand that there is no magical roadblock on the continuum of change in allele frequency?
Because you have not seen nor demonstrated any continuum of anything

You have put up post after post of the same rhetoric that does not demonstrate macroevolution and only actually supports microchanges related to adaptation. Your wishlist hopes subtle changes produces macrochanges but you have no evidence for this.


Thanks for making my point!
No allele frequencies that do not fix in the population do not support your point at all. Rather the opposite. You do realise, don't you that there is contradictory research relating the veracity of selective sweeps some of your algorithms use?

Chatter all you want, your point remains faulty. Change in allele frequency within population over time has been observed, therefore evolution.

No it is your point that remains faulty. In fact I have never heard an evolutionist be so stubborn and unable to see the difference. Your out in orbit on your own as far as using changes in allele frequency to demonstrate macroevolution goes, pal. Most evos aren't that silly.


Allele frequency change has been observed and results in adaptation that is limited. Why is it limited? Because a dog, despite the huge array, will never be as big as a horse nor as small as a mouse. The canine genetic variablility is therefore observed to be limited. To say that something the size of a mouse poofed into something the size of an elephant is not observed. Dogs with all their allele differences are still dogs. Why? Because changes in allele frequency and traits are adaptive or bred for. They are still dogs and were never squirrel like tree climbers. You can change the allele frequency of a squirell like creature as much as you want and it will never adapt into a dog or human or cow. You can have as many changes in allele frequency as you want and a non placental mammal will never poof a placenta into being and reorganise the reproductive system of its' mother either.

So after pages and pages you have made no point other than to say you agree with creationists that adaptation within kind eg cats and dogs happens.

You still need to demonstrate evidence for macroevolution, preferably observed.

As for the 29 evidences put up, as well as my own reply take a look at someone elses reply and falsifications of the purported evidences for macroevolutiion. BTW allele frequency is not one of them. You're the only one tooting this horn.

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -

Here's a snip....

First, evolution does not predict that life would arise precisely once on this planet. If there were two or more unrelated systems of life, then evolutionary theory would effortlessly accommodate that situation.[SIZE=-1][3][/SIZE]
​

Second, even if life originated precisely once, then evolutionary theory would still not predict biologic universals. Shortly after life’s origin, nothing prevented life from branching and leading separate lineages to higher life forms entirely lacking the known biologic universals.
​

Third, evolutionary loss and replacement processes could prevent biologic universals. If one organism is a distant ancestor to another, then nothing in evolution predicts the two must share similarities. If evolution were true, then distant ancestors and descendants (as well as sister groups) can be totally different.
​

Evolution never did predict biologic universals, it merely accommodated them. (ReMine, 92-93.)
​

Go on,now you can knock yourself out refuting that work and the article. Then I will provide more research from your very own to refute the refute.


Or will you just go on and on about allele frequencies and demonstrate your ability to assimilate not so complex information is really quite challenged.

TOE is a clear as mud......and no creationist has reason to convert.

 

[Orogeny]

Evidence 1 speaks to genomic similarity. This was great while the irrefuteable flavour of the month was single cell abiogenesis. Now with the advent of HGT multiple so called 'primitive cells' ( a contradiction in terms for a start with a living cell being a complex factory) are thought to have arisen.

Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LUCA is dead, although some researchers are still grappling around trying to revive her.

I'm not sure how any of this invalidates biological evolution. HGT would, it seems, contribute to quite rapid change in allele frequency over time.

If multiple living cells that arose independently were so alike that they were able to share genomic material by HGT then what you have actually theorised is that all life, no matter how or when it arises on earth, is going to be based on the same genetic code. If they were of different design there would have been no HGT and you would find some life totally different than another. That would at least have provided a plausible scenario which you lot haven't as yet.

This deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. And how is it, exactly, that it disproves change in allele frequency over time?

Life forms a food chain. It must have been created on a similar code for the uptake of nutrients.

What?

Nested hiererchies use algorithms. If there is observed data that birds predate dinosaurs, which there is,

Really? Could you please present the evidence that birds predate all non-avian dinosaurs? Or is your point that birds predate some non-avian dinosaurs? Because we already knew this. Also, in what way would any of this disprove evolution?

They are assumptive and speculative as you do not have dna from ancient species.

DNA evidence is not necessary to understand the nested hierarchy; morphological characteristics were used to define it long before DNA sequencing was available.

You now have convergent evolution and homoplasy to hand wave away that data which does not align.

You're right, it's completely unreasonable that organisms inhabiting similar ecological niches would develop similar morphological characteristics. Why nektonic sea creatures need to by hydrodynamically efficient is beyond me.

No 1 again is not OBSERVED evidence for macroevolution.

It absolutely is. If not, provide an example of what WOULD be.

Uncommon Descent | Proteins Fold As Darwin Crumbles

No agenda here.

1.4 re bird fossils has already been falsified by bird footprints predating the supposed ancestors, despite all the woffle about jawbones.

How does this invalidate evolution, which is the change in allele frequency in a population over time?

your nested hierachies could demonstate our closest living relative is a turtle if that is what was required to support evolution.

Statements of complete misunderstanding of the subject matter in no way help your case.

Just for fun, provide an example of a nested hierarchy that represents turtles, humans, and chimps, and in which the turtle is shown to be closer to the human based on both DNA and gross morphology. Then explain why your example is as valid (or more valid) than the nested hierarchy used by biologists today.

The male human/chimp Y chromosome demonstrates that there is no relationship between mankind and chimp
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content : Abstract : Nature

Oh hey, another article supportive of evolution!

Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years.

Example 3 -human apes is a laugh. What you have are a bunch of apes right up to the last 2 skulls.. Flatter faces have been around in apes for 12 million years with LLuc. Even some of the Neandethal fossils are simply apes like J, K & L. Just look to the nasal cavities that are the same as apes. The reconstructions are no doubt biased.

New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features

I have already said your best example of erectus, Turksana Boy, is an ape. His head on side view looks like a variety of ape. His upper thigh bone is very long at the socket and does not resemple an ape or human thigh bone at all. It is all fraudulent misrepresentation.

Read this from your own
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

Humans ARE apes.

As for intrmediates you do not have any that demonstrate a change from ape to human

Humans ARE apes.

or from deer to whale. What you have are totally different kinds that bear no ancestry. For example Indohyus, an early whale (wait while I stop laughing) is simply a variety of mouse deer.

Show me where an archaeologist or biologist has said that Indohyus was a whale. Because I can't find it. Anyway, in what way does this disprove change in allele frequency in populations over time?

Evolution of whales challenged
How does this article support your point? Yes, our understanding of animal history changes as new evidence arises. Heaven forbid.

Then poof you have an example of an aligator or crocodile kind. Then you have a skinny whale as if you lot know what any flesh looks like an a skeleton eg. Remember the misrepresentation of neanderthal the ape man now said to be perfectly human. Ikes.

What?

How do you stand the constant instability?

Learning new things is scary, huh?

 

[Astridhere]

This thread has gone from what would it take to convert to the other side to evos getting all bent out of shape and trying to prove evolution like threatened creatures.

None of you appear to have offered your views re a conversion. Am I the only one here with guts and ability to adhere to a thread topic?

I do not need to debate TOE. I have done so many times and am fully able to refute any evidence you put forward as well as present observed evidence for creation.

I am also quite able to justify my stance as a biblical creationist.

Do any of you really think that any of this garbage and instability will ever change a thinking persons mind that has actually gone out and taken a look at what you lot have which is basically stuff all.

Creation=Science

Evolution=non plausible scenarios and mythical algorithmic data.


What's more, who do any of you evos think you are to tell anyone what they should or should not believe?

 

[Astridhere]

I'm not sure how any of this invalidates biological evolution. HGT would, it seems, contribute to quite rapid change in allele frequency over time.
You are so out of the loop clearly. I used HGT to demonstrate another point which has clearly evaded you

This deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. And how is it, exactly, that it disproves change in allele frequency over time?

What?


Really? Could you please present the evidence that birds predate all non-avian dinosaurs? Or is your point that birds predate some non-avian dinosaurs? Because we already knew this. Also, in what way would any of this disprove evolution?
I have provided the links to the footprints dated to 212my. Now you are just playing dumb or purposefully being irritating..

DNA evidence is not necessary to understand the nested hierarchy; morphological characteristics were used to define it long before DNA sequencing was available.

Too bad your researcher have no idea! BTW humans are more morphologically closer to ornags. Do I need to spoon feed you that information also?
You're right, it's completely unreasonable that organisms inhabiting similar ecological niches would develop similar morphological characteristics. Why nektonic sea creatures need to by hydrodynamically efficient is beyond me.

It absolutely is. If not, provide an example of what WOULD be.

No agenda here.


How does this invalidate evolution, which is the change in allele frequency in a population over time?


Statements of complete misunderstanding of the subject matter in no way help your case.

Just for fun, provide an example of a nested hierarchy that represents turtles, humans, and chimps, and in which the turtle is shown to be closer to the human based on both DNA and gross morphology. Then explain why your example is as valid (or more valid) than the nested hierarchy used by biologists today.



Oh hey, another article supportive of evolution!




Humans ARE apes.



Humans ARE apes.


Show me where an archaeologist or biologist has said that Indohyus was a whale. Because I can't find it. Anyway, in what way does this disprove change in allele frequency in populations over time?

Evolution of whales challenged
How does this article support your point? Yes, our understanding of animal history changes as new evidence arises. Heaven forbid.
I'll give one more reply to your pandemic of rhetoric. I was speaking to the 29 evidence of macroevolution that uses whale lineage as evidence and demonstrated that what you have are frausdulent misrepresentations.

You use the typical evolutionist ploy of solid ignorance to any point made. That is a loosers game.

If you are going to waste time do so. I have today and tomorrow to run you around.

What?


Learning new things is scary, huh

Only for you obviously.?

Bla bla and on and on about nothing, not getting any point at all snd totally disengaged other than a desire to hear your self speak on forum..... and most certainly still no evidence for macroevolution.


Are you feeling threatened?

 

[Orogeny]

It is YOU who are moving goalposts! This particular tangent started with the ridiculous assertion that we have observed macro-evolution. (Nobody here is contesting what you state here.)

Oh strawman! I never asserted that. Rather, I asserted that there was EVIDENCE for macroevolution, which I provided.

I will, however, assert it now since you seem so exited about it: Macroevolution has been observed!
Observed Instances of Speciation

As are you. Primordial ooze to modern man is theoretical, not factual.

Granted. However, the weight of the evidence supports it.

I won't pretend to draw a boundary line defining macroevolution, but this is one side of that line, while bacteria still being bacteria is on the other.

There is no line. If there was, you would be able to point out its location.

And to think, it was you who in this thread used the words canard and stupid.

That's right. If the shoe fits.

So then you're willing to admit macro evolution is not observed, and therefore not factual? Pretty sure that's all anybody is going for here. (I'll even grant you that it's theoretically plausible.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Orogeny]

Ipresent observed evidence for creation.

Oh that's fresh. Present the evidence here. Or in a new thread, wherever. Either way, I'd hate for this evidence to go unshared.

 

[CTD]

How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.

It is YOU who are moving goalposts! This particular tangent started with the ridiculous assertion that we have observed macro-evolution. (Nobody here is contesting what you state here.)

He's moved the goalposts alright, but pay attention!

There is no longer any call to insult and belittle "young earth" creationists. We're now evolutionists!

We all accept the fact that allele frequencies change. Not a single one of us shall ever deny it. Thus we are all evolutionists.

We can teach proper history, for there is nothing in any flood model but changing allele frequencies - very, very drastic changes!

One must take care to mind not only the spirit but the content of the posts. They - this one at least, is welcoming us. We are now perfectly in tune with "science" no matter how truthful and evidence-based the ideas may be which we advance.

 

[CTD]

What's more, who do any of you evos think you are to tell anyone what they should or should not believe?

They are the elite overlords. Any time they want, with a mere snap of the fingers, they can get a "judge" to say so.

"that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;" - Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

 

[Astridhere]

Oh that's fresh. Present the evidence here. Or in a new thread, wherever. Either way, I'd hate for this evidence to go unshared.

I already have, and it appears you would not know what observed evidence looks like any more.

Fact: your researchers are unable to produce a living cell under lab conditions which is even more unlikely to occur in nature. This demonstrates that for now the creation of life remains with the Gods because you lot cannot make it.

Fact: A living cell is a factory and there is no such thing as a primitive cell and you lot have never observed one. It is a myth derived to facilitate an outlandish idea that a factory can assemble itself. Even bacteria is a complex factory that could not have evolved. A factory requiring all its parts to live and replicate.

Fact: A creature cannot design itself a placenta while facilitating biological change in mum. This is proof that mammal kinds were created and could not evolve. The change is simply hand waved away by evolutionists without any demonstration as to how a placenta may have 'evolved'

Fact: Your fossil evidence does not demonstrate gradual change. The fossil evidence supports punctuated equilibrium even for evolutionists. Hence totally different kinds are misrepresented as ancestors. Eg Indohyus is a variety of mouse deer and looks the same as pakecetus. The skeleton of Ambulocetus natans looks more like a crocodile that has been misrepresented in sketch to suit. You may believe Natans is an intermediate if you wish. However, to me, if a fossil looks more like a croc than a whale or deer I am more likely to say it is a crocodile. You are going to invent some new species and call that an intermediate. Evos have no wish to validate the existence of similar species alive today as that does not attract news headlines or get research grants. Then you have Kutch that resembles a variety of croc also. Then you have a skinny popoise, dophins and whales as intermediates.

The fossil evidence supports the sudden appearance of kinds that vary greatly, some of which are simply versions of the same kind eg Pakecetus and Indohyus are early deer.

Fact: I can produce evidence of a universe centred earth demonstrating a remarkable of which there is no other that does not rely on the mystery of dark energy and dark matter. This is evidence earth is special and supports the creationist paradigm that the earth was created for special purpose. You can produce mysteries.

Fact: Mankind and chimpanzee have huge genomic differences. The Y chromosome alone demonstrates this remarkable difference. Genome size difference of 10%, differences in surface composition, different hot spots. More differences are being found as research goes on even with biased algorithms. This alone is ample evidence to support the assertion Mankind and chimps are not related by a common ancestor.

Then there is all the creationist research out there that is too numerous to fit into a thread space and is mostly based on observed evidence.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Sciences

Evidence from Science



The bible is the word of God and says God created all life and the bible has plenty of scientific veracity and knowledge before your researchers knew of it. Why would one disbelieve anything the bible has to say based on what you have to offer or rather the lack of it. To discredit Genesis is to pick and choose ones beliefs.

So I started by answering the thread topic. None of you have addressed what it would take to convert me, which is evolutionary stability rather than never ending change in all aspects other than "it all evolved because we said so"..

The other possible thing that may lead to a reconsideration is if there was a recant of some of the seriously non plaubible scenarios proffered, such as human feet on curved fingered apes, dinosaurs with modern bird feet, and calling a variety of mouse deer an early whale.

I do not need to be here for days and months going over the same old same old that evolutionists provide.

You also cannot tell me how to weigh up all data. There are many well credentialed creationist scientists, eg John Sanford with peer reviewed papers, that also feel likewise so the lay creationists here are not alone.

The fact that you may not like what I have to say is inconsequential as facts will always be facts.

 

[CTD]

Fact: A creature cannot design itself a placenta while facilitating biological change in mum. This is proof that mammal kinds were created and could not evolve. The change is simply hand waved away by evolutionists without any demonstration as to how a placenta may have 'evolved'

Don't hold your breath on that one. Hammerhead sharks have placentas and give birth to live young. They're not even "bony fish". Any evostory'd turn all their counterfeit "trees of life" (Never ever to be confused with the real Tree of Life) into a mess.

Not that evidence matters. All that matters in Evoland is having a story to regurgitate. No story - no can see .

 

[SkyWriting]

... This theory also just happens to place earth at or near the centre of the universe. ...

Two items.
Because everything is expanding away from everything else, any point in the cosmos is at the center. So Science proves the earth is the center.
Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?

Item two. There seems to be no life anywhere else. So again, we are the center. We are the only ones writing headlines, so we get so claim the center of everything. Don't be so sad that we are "it". Just try and figure out why. Again, we are the center.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh strawman! I never asserted that. Rather, I asserted that there was EVIDENCE for macroevolution, which I provided.

Oh there is "evidence" for whatever you want to believe.
- I recently got over a cold.
- My body fights fight cold germs.
- I must be a adversary of cold germs from back when we were both just germs.
Observing changes in biology does not always lead to a perfect story of origins,
but does effect how high the boots we need to wear when considering the evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Granted. However, the weight of the evidence supports it.

Lets be real.
If we find 100,000 million planets covered with warm ooze and no mammals,
the weight of the evidence will still be against your idea...even at that point.

 

[SkyWriting]

TOE is a clear as mud......and no creationist has reason to convert.

I don't see that Adam named every species on the planet that we currently see, or that every species was on the Ark. So speciation itself is a biblical concept. But if you stick to the scientific method, it doesn't allow one to go very far into the past. I say not at all, but I'll give it a little wiggle room. Only as far back as written history can confirm things.

 

[Split Rock]

Bacteria are still bacteria, after how many generations, being observed in the lab? And finches are still, finches.

And you are still a eukaryote, an animal, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a mammal, a primate and an ape. As I say here frequently, you cannot escape your ancestry. However, the geological column shows there was a time where there were no finches, and a time even when there was no bacteria. I have yet to hear a good explanation for that from you creationists.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't see that Adam named every species on the planet that we currently see, or that every species was on the Ark. So speciation itself is a biblical concept. But if you stick to the scientific method, it doesn't allow one to go very far into the past. I say not at all, but I'll give it a little wiggle room. Only as far back as written history can confirm things.

I know how much you guys rely on the written word, but science is not dependent on written history.

 

[Astridhere]

Two items.
Because everything is expanding away from everything else, any point in the cosmos is at the center. So Science proves the earth is the center.
Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?

Item two. There seems to be no life anywhere else. So again, we are the center. We are the only ones writing headlines, so we get so claim the center of everything. Don't be so sad that we are "it". Just try and figure out why. Again, we are the center.

Hey there SkyWriting.

Yes I agree. These are facts. This is what is observed. Big Bang is not necessarily anti biblical. However, if we are at the centre of the universe and the only planet to have intelligent life forms, which the observed facts supports, then this goes a long way in supporting earth being created for special purpose.

 

[Astridhere]

And you are still a eukaryote, an animal, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a mammal, a primate and an ape. As I say here frequently, you cannot escape your ancestry. However, the geological column shows there was a time where there were no finches, and a time even when there was no bacteria. I have yet to hear a good explanation for that from you creationists.

Well Split Rock if you have never heard a good explanation about this you must not get around much. This is easy.

These ranks you speak to are thought up by naturalists on the basis of common descent. In fact, as you should know, there is huge controversy relating to taxonomic rankings. There is no longer tree of life, but a bush of life. Scientists now are having a preference for using cladistics.

Here is just a couple of examples.

New Tree Of Life Divides All Lower Metazoans From Higher Animals, Molecular Research Confirms

A new and comprehensive analysis confirms that the evolutionary relationships among animals are not as simple as previously thought. The traditional idea that animal evolution has followed a trajectory from simple to complex—from sponge to chordate—meets a dramatic exception in the metazoan tree of life.
New Tree Of Life Divides All Lower Metazoans From Higher Animals, Molecular Research Confirms

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal

But controversy surrounds 400-million-year-old fossilized tracks.
The oldest known tracks of a four-limbed land animal could rewrite part of vertebrate evolution.
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

So even though evolutionists speak to this taxonomy like as if it is clear cut and obvious, this is actually not the case. The taxonomic system is really in a mess. I have plenty of this kind of info that demonstrates the mess it is in. Once we peer into the sub family or family ranks we see a plethora of various kinds thrown together. Most of these named species are created from a chard of bone or tooth.

The bible states the earth was without life at its creation. This agrees with evolutionists. I cannot see your problem.

The bible also speaks to staged creation before Darwin thought of it. That's the 6 creative days, be they literal or not.

The bible speaks to the fish of the sea being the first creation of animal life. This has been verified by the fossil record. Of course the best point being that the bible writers new this before evolutionists did. The same for the circle of the earth. The same for the moon being created after the earth. The same for the systems of the earth. It has not mentioned many sea creatures but generally sea creatures appear to be the first animal creation. Given the vocabulary of the day I think the bible writers have done a great job in putting inspired thoughts into writing just as a secretary writes for her boss, the work still being the work of the boss..

Flying creatures came next. Birds are small and unlikely to have fossils survive long periods. Yet modern bird foot prints have been dated to 212mya. This placed birds half way back to the Devonian. So this find is welcomed by biblical creationists but again throws your lineages into disarray and requires convoluted and mostly non plausible explanations to realign into the common ancestry thing. God has not given all the knowledge about ecosystems. However the Isrealites were told to wash hands and therefore knowledge of bacteria is indicated.

The bible is a spiritual guide. It was never meant to be an exhaustive science book. However, whenever the bible speaks to a scientific fact it has been proven to be accurate many times with knowledge known well before modern science.

101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life

I seriously have no basis to disbelieve any of the bible that does not appear to align with naturalists at present, as I beleive the book was generally protected by Divine intervention in that it has not been allowed to loose its basic meanings and assertions throughout the ages.