The Evidence for Evolution in the Fossil Record

[philbo]

You read one thing and assume another.
The issue isn't that evolution is wrong and that speciation is wrong. Its that evolution doesn't usually happen in a slow steady pace but usually in short bursts of great change. This is usually caused by a large change in the environment rather than a simplistic genetic drift.

There's also the reading of the fossil record: such a small fraction of examples get fossilized. A slow, steady genetic drift in terms of change would not necessarily show in the fossils left behind. Rate of change could be invariant, but you wouldn't see that in the fossil record: when a change makes an improvement to reproduction/survival rate, it'll become prevalent over generations, but in a geological timespan, that'll appear instantaneous and hey presto a change that might have been millennia in the making looks like the flick of a switch in the fossil record.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Brilliant evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins gives a lecture on the evidence for evolution, which he dubs the greatest show on Earth.

Enjoy watching and give your feedback if possible.

An auto junk yard could be excavated, and different designs placed on an identical 'evolutionary tree' according to age, showing diverging branches along with general progression towards superior functionality.- (complete with occasional disfunctional regressions like the Chevy Volt!)

i.e. this observation in and of itself says nothing about those changes resulting by any accidental process

The fossil record is evidence of natural history, that different species originated at different times, and in distinct sudden jumps.

The objective observation itself is not inconsistent with creationism, only certain subjective conclusions drawn from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

An auto junk yard could be excavated, and different designs placed on an identical 'evolutionary tree' according to age, showing diverging branches along with general progression towards superior functionality.- (complete with occasional disfunctional regressions like the Chevy Volt!)

i.e. this observation in and of itself says nothing about those changes resulting by any accidental process

The fossil record is evidence of natural history, that different species originated at different times, and in distinct sudden jumps.

The objective observation itself is not inconsistent with creationism, only certain subjective conclusions drawn from it.

The real question....
Are you "Three pwood", "Threep wood", or "Three p wood"?

 

[HonestJoe]

“...For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor...."

I don't know when this was written but it appears it isn't true (only posting because I recently read the Wikipedia entry on bats and remembered this interesting insight).

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's also worth noting that, as is often the case, what is available in the fossil record is a tiny, tiny minority of the species that will have existed so gaps in the record don't prove anything alone.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The real question....
Are you "Three pwood", "Threep wood", or "Three p wood"?

That's Guybrush Ulysses Threep-wood

I had been wondering though, are you Revolting-est... or Revoltin' Gest?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's Guybrush Ulysses Threep-wood

I had been wondering though, are you Revolting-est... or Revoltin' Gest?

"Gest" isn't a word, so I'm "Revolting est".
(Btw, "est" is the superlative suffix....not Erhard Seminars Training.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Gest" isn't a word, so I'm "Revolting est".
(Btw, "est" is the superlative suffix....not Erhard Seminars Training.)

You could always be Revoltin' Geste, one of Beau Geste's brothers!?

 

[Revoltingest]

You could always be Revoltin' Geste, one of Beau Geste's brothers!?

No, I hate my one brother.
He's dead to me....at least he would be if I could figure out how to accomplish it without being caught.

Edit:
Criminy, I be derail'n the thread.
I should stop.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

Indeed. What part of this is an issue?

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

Depending on how you define "kind" or "types" then yes. But that does not hold true with species. The shift of species over time takes an incredible amount and you will see a reptile be a reptile and it will continue to be a reptile with the exception of an off branch that became birds. Very very few fossils share strong similarities to current animals from long long ago. There are a few but not many. There is a whole section of evolution dealing with why certain creatures remain the same over long periods of time while many change.

Though this isn't an issue I notice how you admired within this post that some fossils do change significantly over time from different 'types". Doesn't that prove evolution in your mind even if it wasn't universally found? (It is if you go back far enough). It also provides a lot of information on what dies off. The ones that didn't adapt quickly enough would have gone extinct. Thus causing the "arbitrary" and sudden removal from the fossil record.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?

The Cambrian explosion was an impressive event. However very very very very very very very few to the point of it being insignificant, number of modern animals are unchanged. The main thing that came out of the cambrian was slightly more advanced animals and some new plant life. There are several theories and explanations as to why it happened but new evidence has shown that there were pre-Cambrian animals which elongates the timeframe to a less impressive stretch. The Cambrian explosion was roughly 540 million years ago.

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!" --Origin of Life-Five Questions Worth Asking

The first signs of life was roughly 1.2 billion years ago. It took roughly 7 million years to reach the Cambrian explosion. And it has taken 5 million more years to reach where we are now. There are answers as to why it suddenly appeared and there is no shortage of plausible theories. The problem is that we don't have enough evidence to be definitive.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

i.e. this observation in and of itself says nothing about those changes resulting by any accidental process

I would disagree with this. If we didn't know how babies were made...then I might think you had some validity...but we do know. And it isn't the stork.

The fossil record is evidence of natural history, that different species originated at different times, and in distinct sudden jumps.

They why does it show exactly this?

The objective observation itself is not inconsistent with creationism, only certain subjective conclusions drawn from it.

I disagree. Though you know that already. In what way is seeing fossils with no modern fossils and modern fossils with no ancient fossils and then having steps that lead from the ancient to the modern inbetween ANYTHING like a sudden creation event where all creatures were created as they are now? I also haven't seen you respond yet to the whale hip evidence that was presented to you a few weeks ago.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I prefer to replace "who" with "what".
There's no basis to presume someone created it.

Ok so you have a problem with "who" let me rephrase.
Where did the "something" originate from?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok so you have a problem with "who" let me rephrase.
Where did the "something" originate from?

I don't know.

 

[Skwim]

I have a question for our evolution pundits.
Did everything evolve from something or nothing?

Not going to say this is a foolish question, but the notion of "evolution" in of itself requires there be a previous something. Something can't change if there's nothing to change from. You'll find it in any good dictionary.

Ok so you have a problem with "who" let me rephrase.
Where did the "something" originate from?

Depends on what point in the evolutionary process you're talking about and if we have sufficient knowledge to say where.

 

[faroukfarouk]

That is not at all a question regarding what is usually meant by evolution, you know.

Evolution is a biological theory. It does not regard phylosophical questions about the origin of "everything".

Without an origin or source the entire evolution theory collapses simply because something cannot evolve from nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Without an origin or source the entire evolution theory collapses simply because something cannot evolve from nothing.

Who knows there was nothing?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't know.

A very honest answer and that debunks the evolution theory.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Not going to say this is a foolish question, but the notion of "evolution" in of itself requires there be a previous something. Something can't change if there's nothing to change from. You'll find it in any good dictionary.

Depends on what point in the evolutionary process you're talking about and if we have sufficient knowledge to say where.

I agree with you but my question is where did evolution originate from?
Without knowing its origin or source you have no theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

A very honest answer and that debunks the evolution theory.

My lack of knowledge doesn't debunk anything.
It just isn't even known how it all started (this time around, even by those who believe they know.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would disagree with this. If we didn't know how babies were made...then I might think you had some validity...but we do know. And it isn't the stork.

how babies are made is separate evidence from the fossil record, I'm saying an 'evolutionary tree' as built from the fossil record- applies just as well to objects we know are designed

I disagree. Though you know that already. In what way is seeing fossils with no modern fossils and modern fossils with no ancient fossils and then having steps that lead from the ancient to the modern inbetween ANYTHING like a sudden creation event where all creatures were created as they are now? I also haven't seen you respond yet to the whale hip evidence that was presented to you a few weeks ago.

yes, we knew going in that we disagreed one everything!

most creationists acknowledge change, natural history, new species as new niches became available etc, the essence of the question is whether species were designed or accidental.
Likewise the Bible presents a timeline, new conditions coinciding with new designs appearing, not a single creation of all life at once, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Who knows there was nothing?

Until someone shows me data to the contrary, I've always contested that there has only ever been everything.

Everything came from Everything.