What Does the Fossil Record Show?

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

[stormer]

"Just look at all the fossils that show how whales developed gradually from prewhales."

You're doing great so far...

"...baby animals being born from eggs and live at the same time..."

Look up ovoviviparous...

"...half a neck or one third of a neck..."

Now you're starting to lose me. A neck is a neck is a neck. Are these half necks you discuss laterally or longitudinally bisected?

"Or how kangaroos developed gradually their distinctive way of giving birth gradually."

Now I'm completely lost; this just doesn't make sense to me at all. Could you please explain?

[Gumlegs]

Gumlegs: 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.

DKC: 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.

You need to learn what science is and how it advances.

[Coyoteman]

Gumlegs: 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.

DKC: 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.

You need to learn what science is and how it advances.

Doug thinks that his "best guess" is better than the "best guess" of scientists who have studied the topic for years.

[Just mythoughts]

"The foot bones had most of the adaptations to bipedality possessed by modern humans."


This is not evidence that this creature is a transitioning species. Evolution is a belief of what took place and the hunt is on for bones as proof to give the belief credibility. The bones do not say I am your distant ancestor the process of thinking evolution claims this.

[tomzz]

Y You've got one leftover little freak which is basically leftover from some early experiment along the lines of trying to design something which could move on land, and that's all. The theory of evolution demands vastly more than that.

The theory of evolution demands that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates, and that those kinds of changes should be happening naturally at all times, and amongst pretty much all species.

• Where is the swordfish with dveloping legs?
• Where is the sardine with developing legs? We pull millions of sardines out of the ocean every year, surely we should see one.
• Where is the anchovy with developing legs?
• Where is the flounder with developing legs?
• Where is the flying fish with developing legs?
• Where is the shark with developing legs?

The theory of evolution demands that all species should be in states of flux at all times, and that new species should arise from aglomerations of such minute changes. The one little freakshow item does not cut it. Your freak has HAD legs all the way back.

Where is the evidence of any known type of fish which does not normally have legs, developing legs?

[Gumlegs]

Doug thinks that his "best guess" is better than the "best guess" of scientists who have studied the topic for years.

Doug doesn't guess. He reads his Bible and knows the answer to all questions. Of course, no two Bible interpretations are ever the same ... but amazingly they're all the only correct one. Go figure.

[Coyoteman]

I posted the fossil find of a foot because you posted:

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

This is not evidence that this creature is a transitioning species.

To most creationists, there is no possible evidence that would convince them of transitions. But all species are transitional (in transition, or adapting).

[stormer]

"...leftover from some early experiment..."

Are you saying god experimented? If god is omniscient/omnipotent then why would that be the case?

[DouglasKC]

Doug thinks that his "best guess" is better than the "best guess" of scientists who have studied the topic for years.

Look, don't get upset at me. The lines in the chart you posted are, in the words of it's author, a "best guess". He didn't say "educated guess". He didn't say "scientific fact". He didn't say "conclusive proof".

He said "best guess". Which is how I pretty much how I would describe most of evolutionary theory.

[Just mythoughts]

The birth rate must have been very very very low over the course of the billions of years.

So what year did the modern man age begin?

[DouglasKC]

Doug doesn't guess. He reads his Bible and knows the answer to all questions. Of course, no two Bible interpretations are ever the same ... but amazingly they're all the only correct one. Go figure

"I" don't know the answers to anything. If it were "I" who wanted to embrace a theory I would (and did at one time) embrace the theory of evolution. However, being led by God's spirit inevitably leads one to reject the theory of evolution and leads one into all truth.

[Gumlegs]

However, being led by God's spirit inevitably leads one to reject the theory of evolution and leads one into all truth.

"All truth" seems to be "all over the map," so to speak, and would appear to include territory where the TOE mustn't necessarily be rejected ... or was Pope John Paul II ignoring God's spirit?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

""I" don't know the answers to anything."

Ok.

[Coyoteman]

The birth rate must have been very very very low over the course of the billions of years.

Not necessarily. In many species the birth (actually reproduction) rate is very high, but the mortality rate is also high. If you look at modern species, most are in equilibrium, with birth matching death and populations remaining somewhat stable. There are local exceptions of course; some species die out (e.g., mammoth and mastodon) while other species thrive for a while (us).

So what year did the modern man age begin?

Not sure what you mean by this.

In fossils, modern man has been around somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 years according to current evidence (see below). It depends on where you draw the line. Some scientists would go older.

If you mean modern civilization, you are looking at closer to 10,000 years.

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The birth rate must have been very very very low over the course of the billions of years."

Why?

[D-fendr]

Thanks for you link. I have a serious question that's raised in response to claimed transitionals. How is parentage proved?

I.e., that a species exists with certain characteristics common to two others doesn't prove it is in the line of both - only that three species existed. We may as easily be drawing a picture based on preconceptions rather than fact.

Scientists acknowledge this often. For example, the statement from your link:

"A team of fossil-finders, led by researchers at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, suggest the answer may include one of your relatives - a distant cousin of modern mammals."

Whether they are related or not is not proven. The facts on the ground would be the same either way. I don't know how parentage could be proven - perhaps more strongly if parent and mutated child were found together.

So, I think it is a problem with many, if not all, claimed transitional species. Your response?

[balrog666]

Aw, come on, Teddy-boy, you can do better than that!

Where's your picture of an aging Tina Turner, where's your spittle-flecked "GOD HATES IDIOTS" rant, and where's the little ASCII bat that used to poop on your shoulder, the irrepressible Splifford?

[ToryHeartland]

So you have proof that all mammals evolved from this creature. This is a proven fact. Is that your position? I said "fall down." I should have said "failed to be consistent with their own standards of proof." That is all I am asking for. If you have proof of an original mammal from which all others descended, lets see the proof....[gratutitous abuse deleted]...You have proven nothing except that you have another theory. If you can't do better than provide a second theory as your proof, you have proven my point.

Clearly, you are going to need to enlighten me about what you accept as 'proof,' and what you regard the measure science (which I remain cheered to know that you are not 'against') uses as 'proof.' E.g. if I drop a stone and, matching the prediction of the theory of gravity, it falls to the earth, have I:

1. Demonstrated gravity, or

2. Given evidence of gravity, or

3. Proved gravity?

I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who thinks this is an insult game, so grow up or find someone else to play your games with.

Please indicate where on earth I offered you any insult??? If you perceived an insult in my post, then you are correct in believing one of us is exhibting some arrested development here.

[adversarial]

I find some problems in your posts. Being familiar with the fallacies of logic, I just attempt to see how they factor into your argument.

You attempt to change the debate to an attack against the "young earth creationists" I don't remember when the age of the earth entered this debate, could it be that you introduced it as a strawman?

You appeal to the authority of "millions" of research projects, yet you fail to identify a single one or their subjects or results. You talk of "tens of thousands of scientists, yet never identify any or their results. You challenge the reader to do the legwork to refute their unstated (by you) findings.

I don't have an interest in this particular debate, I'm satisfied that there are things that we do not know. But...as a Professor, I'd expect better logic from you, in short sir...You argue like a liberal democrat.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

>>>I look at those examples as God using common parts for building. You can build shelves out of 2x6 pieces of wood and you can build a house out of 2x6 pieces of wood, but nobody would come to the conclusion that shelves evolved from houses or houses evolved from shelves.<<<

LOL. I just posted a similar analogy using a human house and a dog house.

Not only that but if you make the analogy of the DNA to an engineers "design specifications" you will find that different design "specs" can, on the surface, look quite similar, but infact specify radically different designs.

As a design engineer myself I would generate new designs from old "specs" all the time. It was called "boiler plating". And to the untrained eye they (specs) would appear quite similar.

It was easier then redesigning (new specs) from scratch. Good engineers don't like "reinventing the wheel" so to speak.