Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I do believe that this has been explained. Humans were identified as having assailed h. erectus and as such disprove the notion that said species preceded h. sapiens.Homo Erectus does precede Homo sapiens. Homo Erectus lived from about 500,000 years ago until about 250,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens lived from 250,000 years ago until now. So perhaps there may be a some overlap, but by and large Homo Erectus is the much older species. That one species may diverge from another does not necessitate that the originating species goes extinct immediately.http://www.search.com/reference/Allopatric That is a statement and not an explanation of how that might work.Here is how it might work. A bird species which relies mostly upon caught flying insects, but also supplements it's diet by chipping away at rotting wood, to obtain grubs and termites. Another bird species with a smaller brain with more cushioning gray matter, get much of it's diet from rotting wood, and some very soft woods, and supplements it's diet with flying insects. Yet another species has a smaller brain, and more gray matter, it relies mostly on soft wood, but can also drill into hard wood or rotting wood to obtain insects, and into rotting woods. It can now only catch very slow or injured flying insects. The final hypothetical bird species, is one that has an even smaller brain, even more gray matter, and is better adapted to very hard woods and almost exclusively gets it's diet from trees. To drive this evolution we would need some ecological change that causes tree drilling to be more advantageous.I honestly don't know how every trait of every species arose. This is one possible explanation for the specialization of woodpeckers.The fact that the traits that make tree-drilling possible, can all potentially exist in gradients.To demonstrate irreducible complexity, you need something that cannot exist in gradients, something which has a utility threshold. You need a trait that is all-or-none.None of these supposed transitional fossils represent the critical alterations that one might expect.Okay, I'm not sure that nature or scientists are required to represent that transitions that YOU expect. Nor would that be grounds to dismiss them unless you already had a disposition to do so.The strata in the region demonstrate that through that point 98% of species ultimately became extinct. This is the converse of evolutionary theory.Mass extinction is the catalyst of evolution. How is this in any way contrary?It has been demonstrated that ERVs have specific functions, and it is a simple matter to document that species possess this virus, but not to state that they necessarily demonstrate development.Whether or not they have acquire a function is not the issue. ERVs show a phylogenetic tree which can be traced using these genetic markers. What they show us is a line or 'tree' of descent and the genetic relationship of various organisms. They also provide evidence showing that most phyla known to us now coexisted during this period.Well, yes. The phylum is a pretty broad category, as there are only 36 of them in the whole Animal kingdom, the vast majority of which are just different types of worms and micro-organisms. Most of what we think of as "animals" fall under just 2 phylum: Cordata, and Arthropoda.I'm still waiting to see how this "disproves" evolution.HINT: It doesn't.There is no reason to believe this. If there was no need to begin feeding from trees with more resilient woodWho is to say there wasn't? Any number of different events or ecological shifts could have cause a bird species to look for food in new places.If there was an urgent requirement, they would not have survived to evolve.Urgent requirements, are precisely what drives evolution. Those that are best suited to their environment survive to pass on their genes.