What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter What You Believe? ^ | 1998 | Various

[Captain Rhino]

No, in the case of flight, it is a PROVEN theory whose fundamental rules/mechanisms are well understood and encapsulated in the various principles of aerodynamic engineering.

To parallel the point being made in this article, you would have to postulate a evolutionary theory of flight arguing that the airliner was in a direct line of descent from organic birds and that we should be able to find transitional forms (half bird-half airplane specimens) in the fossil record. Of course, until those transitional half bird-half airplane forms are discovered, the theory would have to be considered not yet proven. (It cannot be conclusively disproven until the impossibility of biological forms developing metal structures and jet engines is demonstrated through research.)

IMO, the author does a good job (down to the last three paragraphs) in pulling together enough credible information to argue that the theory of Darwinian-style gradual evolution has flaws and seems to founder on the existing but as yet unfulfilled requirement for copious examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. The author presents evidence that this serious shortcoming in proving the theory of evolution is acknowledged by at least some of the researchers in the field of study. And the author points out that some scientists feel another mechanism other than gradual evolution must be at work to explain periods in the past when massive proliferation of diverse life forms seemed to happen in very short geological time periods.

Had the article ended here, the case for arguing the as yet unproven nature of the Theory of (Darwinian) Evolution is made. .

However, as is usually the case in these efforts, the author feels compelled to conclude with a reference to the creation story in Genesis. The author is essentially arguing that, since evolution's case is not yet conclusively proven, my alternative (the Genesis Chapter 1 account) must be true. Aside from presenting the claim without any supporting evidence, this argument immediately fails because it does not meet the same standard set for Darwinian evolution: the presence of transitional forms. In this case, the presence of any transitional forms (and there are some - just not a lot of them) undercuts the Genesis Chapter 1 account as a literally true account of the process in its totality. Failing to acknowledge this brings the author's credibility and objectivity into question.

Once that occurs, the sneaking suspicion arises that the whole article is just another assault on the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. That, in turn, invokes the religion(s) in public schools controversy and we are again off to the races...

This is a shame because, as I wrote above, the author does make the case that, despite nearly two centuries of concentrated effort, the theory of evolution (unlike the theory of flight we started with) remains just that, a theory that has yet to be conclusively proven by either the fossil record or by field observation. Getting the broader scientific community to acknowledge that would be accomplishment enough.

[mjp]

Oh yes evolution must be true. Just look at all the fossils that show how whales developed gradually from prewhales. Or all the fossils that show baby animals being born from eggs and live at the same time with a gradual development from one to the other. Or all the giraffes with half a neck or one third of a neck. Or how kangaroos developed gradually their distinctive way of giving birth gradually.

not

[DouglasKC]

Here, I edited your diagram and removed all those "best guess" lines that link together random skulls dug out of the ground:

[Coyoteman]

You have no intermediate examples of "over time". Evolution is the religion of the Godless , atheists. It's the only way to explain a universe without a creator. It assuages your lack of faith, but evolutionists take more thing on faith than believers.

See #107 for a transitional.

You have been shown wrong twice now, first with your statement that mutations are always fatal and second with speciation.

Your only comeback is to start calling evolutionists names.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping. I was away for a couple of hours, so this thing kinda grew on us. Anyway, it's a creationist article from a creationist source, and as a matter of policy I don't use my ping list for such material. I ping for science news.

[hellbender]

Quantum mechanics and relativity make predictions which can be (and have been) verified with extreme precision. Atoms can be seen with atomic force and scanning tunneling microscopes. Subatomic particles can be visually tracked with cloud chambers, bubble chambers, and similar detectors. Plate tectonic movement can also be measured. There are no comparable tests for macro-evolution producing speciation. Evolution is probably true, but is not supported to the degree that many physical science theories are.

[TAP ONLINE]

Sorry again but you do not know your Marx. His followers then and to this day regard it as scientific. Lysenko comes to mind (Marxist botany) All I am trying to say is that tagging the word theory to a belief or Science does not make it true or untrue.

[Ben Chad]

The author didn't use Time and Encarta to prove his case.

Who's the author?

[dread78645]

I have never read where a mutation was ever anything but fatal for the mutant.

The evolutionary history of the CCR5-Delta32 HIV-resistance mutation.

[Mad Dawgg]

"What Does the Fossil Record Show?"

"Marine invertebrates, mostly."

I am gonna cover all the bases and go with "Dead Things"

[muawiyah]

If em "God created us in him own image", en where are't ganja in hem gran'scheme mon?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/faith/images/rastafarian2_150.jpg

[Non-Sequitur]

No, in the case of flight, it is a PROVEN theory whose fundamental rules/mechanisms are well understood and encapsulated in the various principles of aerodynamic engineering.

Based on the definition given by the website that initiated this thread to begin with then isn't 'proven theory' an oxymorn?

The author presents evidence that this serious shortcoming in proving the theory of evolution is acknowledged by at least some of the researchers in the field of study.

But presents nothing to support his own. We are supposed to accept that this is a binary arguement. If Evolution is wrong then biblical creation must be right. Science doesn't work that way. Competeing theories should present their evidence and judgement based on that. There is a litereal mountain of evidence that evolution supporters use to argue their case. Where is the evidence of Biblical creation except in the Bible itself?

[Gumlegs]

Here, I edited your diagram and removed all those "best guess" lines that link together random skulls dug out of the ground:

IOW, you took all the science out of it. Congratulations -- a few years of work like this and you may be as ignorant as the rest of those for whom the tenth century appears to be some sort of ideal.

We had thunderstorms here yesterday. Meteorology or God's wrath?

[Non-Sequitur]

The TOE is a fairy tale.... a fenced off estate in flesh man's mind.

What about the rest of the foot?

[Just mythoughts]

You raise a good question, I guess it (the foot) is still missing in the layers.

[DouglasKC]

IOW, you took all the science out of it. Congratulations -- a few years of work like this and you may be as ignorant as the rest of those for whom the tenth century appears to be some sort of ideal.

No sir. I took out the "best guess" lines. The images author, in the bottom right legend, concurs that these are only "best guess" lines.

[freedumb2003]

Can the theory of evolution be proven? After all, it is called the theory of evolution in acknowledgment that it is a hypothesis rather than a confirmed scientific fact.

The article is pointless if the author doesn't undestand the words "theory," "hypothesis" and "fact." Folks, save your time and don't waste it on this article.

People with no understanding of the subject at hand shouldn't wander into that terrtory.

[GOPJ]

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks"

There's not one missing link - ALL the links are missing.

[Coyoteman]

You raise a good question, I guess it (the foot) is still missing in the layers.

Just one of many:

OH 8, found in 1960, consisted of a set of foot bones, complete except for the back of the heel and the tips of the toes. Estimated age is about 1.8 million years. The foot bones had most of the adaptations to bipedality possessed by modern humans. There is a well-developed arch, and the big toe is alongside the other toes instead of diverging, as is the case with apes and monkeys. Source.

[freedumb2003]

There are no comparable tests for macro-evolution producing speciation. Evolution is probably true, but is not supported to the degree that many physical science theories are.

The physical sciences are probably the most in need of appropriate theories and things like TToG are way behind TToE in both length of time in existence and breadth.

Remember, a theory explains WHY things happen. The more we observe the more difficult the theory gets.