Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Humans have been found in the same strata as these fossil fragments.If by human you mean, a member of the genus Homo, then yes. But by this very same definition the fragments themselves are considered 'human'. This is not what most people mean when they say human. If you are implying that homo sapien remains are found in the same layer then this would be entirely false.This also neglects all other instances in which the fossil record fails to demonstrate the transitional forms that would be expected were evolution to be correct.You mean like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils A genetic relationship does not mean that the one organism precedes another.no, but it does mean they share a common ancestor.Or my ability to comprehend that it does not overcome the limitations associated with the theory.Rather the limitations are simply a result of your comprehension. The scholarly work I cited talks about something called ERVs (Engenous RetroViruses) which randomly insert themselves into DNA which is inherited by offspring, leaving a "genetic marker" which occupy about 8% of the human Genome, and considering how massive the human genome is that is a lot of genetic markers we are talking about.You will inherit all of your father's ERVs, and then you will acquire some of your own. In this way we can not only find "who" you are related with, but how closely you are related. As you will share more with your father than your grandfather.Using this data scientists have been able to construct an evolutionary tree up until the point where DNA is still obtainable. This does not accurately represent the fossil record. There are numerous instances of events that drove the existence of various species.And the creation of new species happened how? The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, for instance, eliminated the dinosaurs.Yes, it eliminated them. It did not create them. You also may not be aware of the somewhat inconvenient (for evolutionists) Cambrian explosion, which suggests that numerous species emerged during a period that is much shorter than the commonly accepted evolutionary timeline.The Cambrian Explosion which I am fully aware of (thank you), is an event that occurred over the course of 80 million years. I have yet to determine if you are an old earth creationist or a young earth creationist, but if young earth the very notion of a Cambrian explosion is impossible within the young earth timeframe.The Cambrian explosion was simply a rapid diversification, for which many explanations have been offered. It could have been caused by a lack of fossilization prior to the Cambrian explosion due to soft-bodied animals or atmospheric conditions, the advent of eyes or other various explanations. Nevertheless the only problem this poses to evolution, is the rate at which scientists believe diversification occurs. This may force scientists to conclude that evolution occurs much more rapidly than once thought. The very fact that different species are appearing at different times is contrary to most creationist worldviews. The only other explanation I can think of is that they believe that God did not create life in a single creation event, but rather over the course of time creates a new species every once in a while. Which is a radical view, even for creationists.Considering that I have demonstrated where evolution fails resist scrutiny, it is obvious that creationism is more believable.*And the view that I describe above...is that what you believe?I have offered an explanation, without any proper rebuttal.Statement =/= explanationThe beaks of numerous birds may have the integrity to withstand several repeated impacts, but that does not mean that they have the capability to sustain that.In softer woods they can, yes. Even rotting wood, where insects still reside. The bird may become more resistant to brain damage over multiple generations. Such a transition is entirely feasible.