The Evidence for Evolution in the Fossil Record

[Monk Of Reason]

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

You talked about cars and how we couldn't know the mechanism of change that allowed them to "evolve". However we do know the mechanism that allows us to evolve. Seeing the changes and knowing the way we change allows us to put 2 and 2 together.

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?

Old earth creationism is somewhat less absurd. But why reject common ancestor? And it still behooves me as to why ID proponents that assume evolution was the way in which the god created us have to take that leap.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

I think that gets to the heart of it, if the origins of life are not possible accidentally, then they were produced intentionally.

Then evolution posits that the creator of something as incredible as life and the universe that so specifically incorporates it... had no particular plans for what that life should look like..
and that the resulting singular being of humanity- capable of acknowledging a creator and giving love, thanks in return.. would be one more staggering unintended consequence!

 

[Skwim]

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

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a process, and the process began when the first organism(s) reproduced something different from itself. A difference that was passed on to subsequent generations. Where the theory part comes in is in explaining the how and why of this change. If you're looking for how the very first organism came along, don't look to evolution to tell you, because it can't and doesn't even care to. Evolution doesn't address origins, but change. Origins is a the purview of astrobiology, chemistry, religion, and perhaps some other spheres of inquiry and explanation.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

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?

The dry gully of a river bed gives the impression that it was designed for a river, doesn't it?

River beds shaped, ever so slightly, to accommodate the whispy and bendy nature of flowing water. The rocks are designed to be smooth so that water can more easily flow over them. Certain areas are obviously carved away or dug out so that water can fall from varying heights in order to aerate itself more efficiently. Rocks piled at the bottom of waterfalls were plucked from the ground and placed there to give the cascading water something to land on before pooling in a bowl at the bottom to better collect itself before continuing its journey. Obviously we can see that river beds were designed before the water started flowing!

Except you wouldn't say that's accurate would you? You would agree and admit that it's the flow of the water which carves those pathways and features along it's path of least resistance, giving the appearance of design, right?

How could you argue against my assertion that river beds were designed, if I said that the problem isn't the data, but the interpretation of the data?

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I agree with you....sort of.
"Everything" can take many forms.
Some say it all came from nothing, which also is more complicated than commonly thought.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I agree with you....sort of.
"Everything" can take many forms.
Some say it all came from nothing, which also is more complicated than commonly thought.

Right, which is why I posit that everything came from everything.
There is no such thing as nothing, so far as the existence of this Universe is concerned.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You talked about cars and how we couldn't know the mechanism of change that allowed them to "evolve". However we do know the mechanism that allows us to evolve. Seeing the changes and knowing the way we change allows us to put 2 and 2 together.

Old earth creationism is somewhat less absurd. But why reject common ancestor? And it still behooves me as to why ID proponents that assume evolution was the way in which the god created us have to take that leap.

OK, but the record and the mechanism are still separate points though- certainly I agree with most creationists that the mechanism allows for adaptation in life- and that this is necessary for life to sustain itself.
But I'm saying that the fossil record in itself does not prove that all biological designs were derived from adaptation alone.

It may be stretching the analogy a tad, but it could be argued that random unintended imperfections in different manufacturing lines can produce superior and inferior cars- the better ones surviving- being 'naturally selected' by consumers to be 'copied' more frequently- but this alone can not drive significant design improvements. Which is why the 'missing links' between major design changes- (e.g. rear wheel to front wheel drive) would never be found in the junk yard

 

[rusra02]

[ 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.

The Cambrian explosion was an impressive event. However very very very very very very very few to the point of it
The ability of a species to have great variety (within limits) is not disputed nor even relevant, IMO.

Indeed. What part of this is an issue?

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.

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.

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

Indeed. What part of this is an issue?

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.

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.

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.

The fact that animals have the capacity for variation within species (within limits) is not at issue. This capacity is inherited. I think you hit the nail on the head in your response to the Cambrian explosion. "The problem is that we don't have enough evidence to be definitive." That lack of evidence, not lack of theorizing, is the fatal flaw in the ToE.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a process, and the process began when the first organism(s) reproduced something different from itself. A difference that was passed on to subsequent generations. Where the theory part comes in is in explaining the how and why of this change. If you're looking for how the very first organism came along, don't look to evolution to tell you, because it can't and doesn't even care to. Evolution doesn't address origins, but change. Origins is a the purview of astrobiology, chemistry, religion, and perhaps some other spheres of inquiry and explanation.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
By Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species.
He confirms it being a theory and he also confirms it failure.
I rest my case.

 

[outhouse]

I rest my case.

You don't have a case. Only fanaticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
By Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species.
He confirms it being a theory and he also confirms it failure.
I rest my case.

Fossilization is a very rare event. And at any given location or environment, the probability of it would likely vary with time.
The theory hasn't failed in any of its predictions yet.

 

[Tengri]

The science is pragmatist. It is good to understand whole enviroment but there's a objective of modern science: controlling the natural life.

We have to support science because there is no alternative way to develop human life standards. There are many scientific areas that based on evolution. As a Tengrist I believe in evolution and this not sounds weird to me. Evolution is the best explaining of the creation. I believe that, Tengri (God) created the "evolving"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The science is pragmatist. It is good to understand whole enviroment but there's a objective of modern science: controlling the natural life.

We have to support science because there is no alternative way to develop human life standards. There are many scientific areas that based on evolution. As a Tengrist I believe in evolution and this not sounds weird to me. Evolution is the best explaining of the creation. I believe that, Tengri (God) created the "evolving"

You believe God created evolution itself right? but that there was no plan, design, for what this process would create? everything that came from it was random, unintended?

 

[Tengri]

You believe God created evolution itself right? but that there was no plan, design, for what this process would create? everything that came from it was random, unintended?

Evolution itself is created and planned by God. In my faith we believe that we all came from God, created from God and we are turning back to God. It is a loop.

And we believe that brotherhood all of this natural enviroment. A bird and me, we are equal. A tree worths to be respected and we hug it.

For Tengri believers, evolution is not strange. And so logical. But saying "random" to unknown things is weird. Science couldn't explore this but I know and I hope, we will "discover" the God.

Personally I believe, God is a fact and tangible. We discovered the radiation, ultraviolet light, infrared... We will discover the God's energy also.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The ability of a species to have great variety (within limits) is not disputed nor even relevant, IMO.

The fact that animals have the capacity for variation within species (within limits) is not at issue.

What are those limits? What mechanism sets those limits? How do you know they exist at all?
Where did you get your information to make the claim on the limits of variance and adaptation to environments?

 

[Skwim]

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Because fossilization is a very fickle process.

Few organisms become fossilized, because the circumstances that an organism has to be in is very specific.

Fossilization (actually, "mineralization"; "fossil" refers to the digging up rather than the laying down) is a very closely-conditioned process. First the object has to be buried rather quickly so it doesn't decay or get consumed by insects and microbes. Then it has to remain undisturbed for a long time in an environment that's wet enough to dissolve and transport minerals, but not so wet as to wash the remains away. Finally, it has to be found. Most fossils are found as they "weather out" of the matrix and someone who can recognize a fossil has to be at hand when that happens. Too soon, and there's nothing to see; too late, and the fossil itself is weathered away. For small fossils, this could be a matter of days; for massive bones and casts, perhaps a season.
source

"Only a tiny fraction of organisms ever become fossils, and only a tiny fraction of fossils are ever discovered by paleontologists. Most organisms live and die in oxygen-rich environments in which they quickly decompose. Organisms are not likely to become fossils unless they are transported by wind and water to sites that lack oxygen, where decomposition proceeds slowley or not at all. Furthermore, geological processes transform many rocks, destroying the fossils they contain, and many fossil-bearing rocks are deeply buried and inaccessible. Paleontologists have studied only a tiny fraction of the sites that contain fossils, although they find and describe many new ones every year."
Macmillian. Life: The Science of Biology. Tenth Edition: p 514​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution itself is created and planned by God. In my faith we believe that we all came from God, created from God and we are turning back to God. It is a loop.

And we believe that brotherhood all of this natural enviroment. A bird and me, we are equal. A tree worths to be respected and we hug it.

For Tengri believers, evolution is not strange. And so logical. But saying "random" to unknown things is weird. Science couldn't explore this but I know and I hope, we will "discover" the God.

Personally I believe, God is a fact and tangible. We discovered the radiation, ultraviolet light, infrared... We will discover the God's energy also.

I think we are on the same page then, I had no idea I was a Tengrist!

Does this involve reincarnation?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

OK, but the record and the mechanism are still separate points though- certainly I agree with most creationists that the mechanism allows for adaptation in life- and that this is necessary for life to sustain itself.
But I'm saying that the fossil record in itself does not prove that all biological designs were derived from adaptation alone.

Yet it is a known mechanism that can and no other known mechanism has any evidence. So if we have evidence it was and no evidence that it was anything else why would we ever assume it was something else?

It may be stretching the analogy a tad, but it could be argued that random unintended imperfections in different manufacturing lines can produce superior and inferior cars- the better ones surviving- being 'naturally selected' by consumers to be 'copied' more frequently- but this alone can not drive significant design improvements. Which is why the 'missing links' between major design changes- (e.g. rear wheel to front wheel drive) would never be found in the junk yard

The problem being that random changes that weed out all detrimental ones and emphasize the improved ones DOES drive for significant improvements. There are not missing links between major deisng changes. A "missing link" is a myth more or less in today's world. The "missing link" that was talked about before was finding a human ancestor that was obviously human but not quite human. We have found several of these.

 

[Tengri]

I think we are on the same page then, I had no idea I was a Tengrist!

Does this involve reincarnation?

Tengrism is not a religion, it is a life view and universal. It is not dogmatic and based on the life, life experiences.

Reincarnation... Maybe we believe and also don't believe in it. There is no strong belief in reincarnation like other Asian religions. They say, if we do good things we will reborn as human or God, if we do bad things in this life we will reborn as insects and animals.

It is so haughty. Insects and animals are shown like bad and low, fallen things. But we believe that we all come from God and we all equal.

But involve and reincarnation connection is dark for us. Maybe we can believe, maybe not. But personally I don't believe this asian thinking.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

[ 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.

The Cambrian explosion was an impressive event. However very very very very very very very few to the point of it
The ability of a species to have great variety (within limits) is not disputed nor even relevant, IMO.


The fact that animals have the capacity for variation within species (within limits) is not at issue. This capacity is inherited. I think you hit the nail on the head in your response to the Cambrian explosion. "The problem is that we don't have enough evidence to be definitive." That lack of evidence, not lack of theorizing, is the fatal flaw in the ToE.

It is not a lack of evidence in the TOE. It is a lack of evidence of what caused the Cambrian. We have plenty of evidence to suggest it was a number of things. But here is where your whole argument falls to tiny pieces. THE VAST MAJORITY OF "SPECIES" AND "KINDS" FOUND TODAY DID NOT EXIST IN THE CAMBRIAN. A good example is MAMMALS and BIRDS. Pretty much any land dwelling animal. Even modern fish were not fully developed in the Cambrian. Tetrapods, which are the species that almost all land animals originate from didn't exist until 395 million years ago. This is a full 100 million years after the Cambrian explosion and these early ones weren't even on land yet.