Why is this a problem? You do understand the difference between intermediate and direct ancestor, do you not?
Listen up.this thread asks for a creationist to supply data that supports a creative view. I have done just that.
"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."
--Charles Darwin
Oh bla bla. None of this carry on negates the fact that the data I provided supports my view
Darwin refuted your argument 150 years ago.
Darwin didn't even know what HGT and epigentic inheritance is both being non vertical forms of information transmission. If you are still defending Darwin you are obviously not worth debating.
Could it be like "bird hipped" dinosaurs?
Ornithischian Dinosaurs
Yes, just like they have a problem telling the difference between a chihuahua and a dog.
Humans are apes just like chihuahuas are dogs.
The hips do not. Australipithecines had hips consistent with bipedalism.
None of this woffle detracts from the fact that the evidence I provided supports and aligns well with creation. You simply cannot bear it as evolutionists would loose one of their favourite passtimes...dumping on creationists.
It sits right here:
This graph does not show nested hierarchies my dear. Do you even know what they are? Indeed 395myo tetrapod footprints has put your vertebra phylogeny out of whack...and your researchers agree. Deal with it!
How do you determine the morphology of the entire organism from footprints? How do you measure cranium size from footprints?
That is no problem for evolutionists. Your researchers can make a whole species and life story from a chard of bone.
So the Laetoli footprints put human feet on an ape afarensis and you'll accept that, but you are going to ignore those footprints that do not suit you. How typical!
Your researchers have shown they have no idea who is who in the zoo, and that is why specimens float in and out of the human line like Sunday dinners.
You also have few chimp ancestors...Guess why? They are all tossed in the human line with reckless abandon.
All you have presented in this thread is incredulity and ridicule. That is not data.
I have presented published research into the finding of fully terrestrial tetrapod footprints dated to 395mya. That is supportive of creatures being found fully formed with terrestrial traits as one would expect if created. The ridicule is in response to your inability to discern what data and evidence actually looks like and the difference between data and hypothesis.
What data have you presented which supports the claim that species were magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity?
Poofing into existence is akin to your abiogenesis, which remains in fairy land also. Mankinds inability to understand the knowledge that a God and a deity has is no solid basis to suggest the coalescence and formation of an animate being is impossible. It is beleivers that acknowledge the power of God and then deny it in favour of evolution that are the ones in need, I feel.
Even worse, you still can not tell us what features a real transitional would have. All you can do is point to difference between modern humans and fossil species as if that rules out the possibility of a shared ancestor.
Can you explain what features Nephalim, would have so that you can falsify the claim that nephalim ever existed? This is a nonsense that you continue to harp over.
Fancy expecting a creationist to describe a mythical creature as a basis to falsify it. What nonsense.