The Evidence for Evolution in the Fossil Record

[shawn001]

we can use the word evolution to describe changes in cars, the atmosphere and life, I don't think any were accidental.

But you make my original point comparing todays 'classical evolution' with yesterdays classical physics

The formation of solar systems and our planet illustrates this- it would never have happened under simple classical physics as once believed, those laws were just to simple to overcome entropy and create emergent functional systems-
the 'evolution' of our solar system and planet required very detailed precise instructions, blueprints, guiding very specific results- without which matter would collapse into its simplest state

So too with life, the superficial observation of life evolving itself into its specific forms by a simple intuitive process of random mutation and natural selection, is just that, a superficial observation. Without an underlying blueprint to guide the process- it would quickly collapse into it's simplest state

You are not answering the question at all. You also don't seem to know anything about how our solar system formed.


So I will ask again, is anything below incorrect yes or no. Not some speel on fine tuning.

"Some of the oldest and first fossils are the ones that evolved photosynthesis and why you breath Oxygen on this planet and not natural gas. Before you get to why are there still wolves or "kinds" or any animals.

As well as when the Earth first formed it did not have van allen belts so life would have been fried by solar radiation, not to mention constant meteor bombardment and magma. You jump much later into life, before a lot of other things happened. When the iron core of the Earth cooled it created the Van Allen belts and life could survive. You wouldn't survive on the surface of the moon, from solar radiation and no oxygen. Not to mention how the moon formed as well."

Do you agree the process of evolution changed our atmosphere? Or with what I wrote above.

 

[Skwim]

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

"Tengrism (sometimes stylized as Tengriism), occasionally referred to as Tengrianism is a Central Asian religion characterized by features of shamanism, animism, totemism, both polytheism and monotheism, and ancestor worship."
Source: Wikipedia​

 

[Tengri]

"Tengrism (sometimes stylized as Tengriism), occasionally referred to as Tengrianism is a Central Asian religion characterized by features of shamanism, animism, totemism, both polytheism and monotheism, and ancestor worship."
Source: Wikipedia​

Please do not trust Wikipedia so much. But yeah some of the informations are true.

 

[Skwim]

Please do not trust Wikipedia so much. But yeah some of the informations are true.

I'll trust whatever I find to be trustworthy. Wikipedia has proven to be an unbiased and reputable source of accurate information. Now, if you can show why its characterization of Tengrism as a religion is erroneous please do so. I suggest starting with a good definition of "religion" so we're all on the same page.

 

[David M]

Not sure which phrase you are referring to,

do you mean when Dawkins said about the Cambrian fossil record- "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"?

Dawkins did not say that about the Cambrian Fossil record, he said that specifically about the phyla Platyhelminthes (flatworms) whose earliest know members appear in the Eocene (but whose distant ancestors are present in the Cambrian). To imply that he was talking about the Cambrian is dishonest and a definite case of quote-mining.

Here is the sentence that contains the words you used:
"The Platyhelminthes, to a worm, are ‘already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.’"

To try and claim that the sentence fragment you used applies to anything other than the single phyla mentioned is dishonest. This is especially true when you consider the sentence that follows.

 

[fred williams]

fIRST OFF eVOLUTION IS A FALSE CONCEPT.
Why ? Gravity proves it is false
Known fact Gravity decreases each year , each decade each century at a constant rate
Going back in time just 10 thousand years appling the constant rate in reverse no life could exist on earth as everything would be crushed by gravity
So this myth of billions of years is just pure hokum nonsense. plus show me an 'EYE' that has evolved

 

[dust1n]

fIRST OFF eVOLUTION IS A FALSE CONCEPT.
Why ? Gravity proves it is false
Known fact Gravity decreases each year , each decade each century at a constant rate
Going back in time just 10 thousand years appling the constant rate in reverse no life could exist on earth as everything would be crushed by gravity
So this myth of billions of years is just pure hokum nonsense. plus show me an 'EYE' that has evolved

What evidence is there that gravity decreases each year?

 

[Bunyip]

fIRST OFF eVOLUTION IS A FALSE CONCEPT.
Why ? Gravity proves it is false
Known fact Gravity decreases each year , each decade each century at a constant rate
Going back in time just 10 thousand years appling the constant rate in reverse no life could exist on earth as everything would be crushed by gravity
So this myth of billions of years is just pure hokum nonsense. plus show me an 'EYE' that has evolved

Sure, well two things - firstly , no gravity is not decreasing.
Secondly, would you like a few references on the evolution of the eye? It is well understood.

 

[Pegg]

Sadly the religious set seem quite unmoved by things like fossil records.

Judges are also unmoved by circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Why? Because it relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of a fact.

You can dig up something and put a story to it.... but that doesnt make your story factual.

 

[Skwim]

Judges are also unmoved by circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Why? Because it relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of a fact.

If you're talking about trail judges, you've misconstrued their function. If you're talking about lower courts e.g. family court, juvenile court, traffic court, etc, circumstantial evidence is often very important.

 

[Ouroboros]

fIRST OFF eVOLUTION IS A FALSE CONCEPT.
Why ? Gravity proves it is false
Known fact Gravity decreases each year , each decade each century at a constant rate

No, it doesn't. Gravity hasn't changed a single bit since I was a youngster. Is this a joke?

Going back in time just 10 thousand years appling the constant rate in reverse no life could exist on earth as everything would be crushed by gravity

It is a joke.

So this myth of billions of years is just pure hokum nonsense. plus show me an 'EYE' that has evolved

You're most definitely a joke.

 

[shawn001]

Judges are also unmoved by circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Why? Because it relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of a fact.

You can dig up something and put a story to it.... but that doesnt make your story factual.

Funny you should say this


Intelligent Design on Trial
Science is "Exhibit A" in a landmark trial on the teaching of evolution.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


"You can dig up something and put a story to it.... but that doesnt make your story factual."

This also a apply to the Bible?

 

[shawn001]

fIRST OFF eVOLUTION IS A FALSE CONCEPT.
Why ? Gravity proves it is false
Known fact Gravity decreases each year , each decade each century at a constant rate
Going back in time just 10 thousand years appling the constant rate in reverse no life could exist on earth as everything would be crushed by gravity
So this myth of billions of years is just pure hokum nonsense. plus show me an 'EYE' that has evolved

LOL

First where did you ever learn that about gravity.

The solar system is 5 billion years old and earth is a part of the solar system.

"plus show me an 'EYE' that has evolved"

Look in the mirror.

 

[shawn001]

"The human family tree contains a colorful cast of animal ancestors that have shaped our bodies in surprising ways. We’re all descendants of these ancestors — from fish to reptiles to primates — but each of us shows that legacy in slightly different ways. No, you won’t find any humans who sport fins or scales. Nevertheless, our early ancestors are… ahem… on the hook for some surprising physical quirks.

Take this quiz to see just how “fishy” you are. How has your inner fish (or reptile or primate) influenced your anatomy?"

Find Your Inner Fish | Your Inner Fish | PBS | PBS


"
Finding the Origins of Human Color Vision
The ability to see the world in color is one most people take for granted. But our earliest primate ancestors lacked this ability. When and how did we gain the ability to see the world the way we do? Neil Shubin pays a visit to vision expert Jay Neitz to learn where our color vision comes from."

"
Even though eyeballs don't generally fossilize, the eye sockets, also called orbits, reveal a lot about an animal's eyes. Evolutionary inferences can be drawn from comparing the position of the orbits among various fossilized skulls.

Some 375 million years ago, our fishy ancestors living in the shallows had eyes near the top of their skulls. This allowed them to look at what lay above the water's surface without exposing their entire bodies. You can see this location of the eyes in animals like Tiktaalik."

As our lineage moved onto land, our ancestors' eyes migrated toward the sides of the head. This adaptation of their visual ability gave them a better view of the landscape, whether they were hunting for prey or looking out for predators. Fossils of animals like Thrinaxodon, for example, have orbits near the sides of their heads.

Finally, in our primate ancestors, the eyes moved to the front of the skull. This resulted in better depth perception, a critical capability in animals who spend their lives leaping among branches. Fossils of early primates like Notharctus exhibit this type of eye-socket placement.


Explore Your Inner Animals | Your Inner Fish | PBS

 

[outhouse]

Gravity proves it is false

Very funny.

Could you provide credible sources please.

 

[Curious George]

Judges are also unmoved by circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Why? Because it relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of a fact.

You can dig up something and put a story to it.... but that doesnt make your story factual.

Judges are very much moved by circumstantial evidence.

 

[outhouse]

but that doesnt make your story factual.

Despite that, Evolution is fact. Its not up for debate.

 

[Ouroboros]

Judges are also unmoved by circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Why? Because it relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of a fact.

Usually it's the jury that makes the conclusion of facts, not the judge. In some cases it's a judge, but in most criminal cases, it's a jury (by the peer and such).

You can dig up something and put a story to it.... but that doesnt make your story factual.

So true. That's why 50,000 pieces of writings from the Bible don't make the story of Jesus factual.

However, the fossil record is over 500,000 and counting, and evolution is also supported by genetics, radiation of species according to geological changes and formations, observed speciations, predictions made based on the theory shown to be true, and computer software using evolutionary algorithms successfully to solve problems. That's just a couple of million times more evidence than Jesus.

 

[Pegg]

"You can dig up something and put a story to it.... but that doesnt make your story factual."

This also a apply to the Bible?

the various books of the bible and the accounts they contain are a record of events which can be backed up physical evidence.

For example, the account about the cities of Soddom and Gomorrah and the fire and sulfure which rained down on them has physical evidence of the event.
You can visit those very places today and see the balls of sulphur strewn over the entire area and you can also see the remains of the buildings there which have been calcified.
You can also read about the kings of Isreael in the bible and you can find secular sources mentioning those same people.

So the bible accounts have physical evidence to back them up.

 

[Bunyip]

the various books of the bible and the accounts they contain are a record of events which can be backed up physical evidence.

For example, the account about the cities of Soddom and Gomorrah and the fire and sulfure which rained down on them has physical evidence of the event.
You can visit those very places today and see the balls of sulphur strewn over the entire area and you can also see the remains of the buildings there which have been calcified.
You can also read about the kings of Isreael in the bible and you can find secular sources mentioning those same people.

So the bible accounts have physical evidence to back them up.

Sure. The same can be said of Harry Potter books - they refer to London for example, and there is physical evidence of London. The problem is that this does not lend any weight to the truth of the Harry Potter books either.