Living fossils expose evolution

The fossil record is buried in what is known as the geologic column. The geologic column consists of layers which we find are older as we descend the column. It so happens that in the oldest layers we find no dinosaur or mammal fossils. We only find a lot of fossils of strange species which are now extinct, the descendants of which are not readily recognizable as such. (Not by putting pictures of them side by side, anyway.) In more recent layers we do find fossils of dinosaurs and mammals, but no longer any fossils like the ones in the older layers. And in the most recent layers we don't even find fossils of dinosaurs any more.In short, we find a succession of different species in the fossil record. The fossils are not randomly distributed among the layers, as we would expect if no evolution had taken place and all species had been created at the same time. The succession of fossils points to a progression of some kind. We prefer to call it evolution.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Not at all. Ever heard of erosion?Anyway, we're not off-topic here, because your whole argument hinges on the fossil record. I'm telling you that the fossil record shows a progression, not stasis. Evolution is a fact, and it's laid down in the geologic column. Instead of dodging the issue, why don't you give me a real answer?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

No one is "pulling" you off-topic. I specifically asked you to address the issue of the progression of fossils in the geologic column. Yet you chose to dodge it once more yourself.To repeat: evolution is a fact, and it's laid down in the geologic column. Kindly respond to this, as the fossil record is very much to the point in this thread.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I'm only stating the facts. I appreciate the position you're in and I don't mind if you take longer to answer my question. The only thing I ask is that you reply to the main issue instead of going off-topic. I'm not the one forcing you to go off-topic, you do that yourself. Then you are told wrongly. A simple search reveals that vertebrates started to appear 525 million years ago.Still, this does not address the issue of the progression we find in the fossil record. In the context of this argument it's not even very important what the exact timescales are, the fact remains that in the older layers (it doesn't matter how much older) we find different, usually simpler fossils than in younger layers. Evolution has taken place, it's right there, visible for us in the rocks we dig up. These are facts, and I ask you to reconcile those facts with your contention that evolution never took place.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I'm still awaiting a reply to the issue I raised about the progression found in the fossil record, and now you run away. Not very classy.Please come back and give me a proper reply, or admit you're wrong, I don't care.But don't run away.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

At least you're still here. Any chance of some proper replies? Or are you going to run away, like you keep saying?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Point taken, I apologize.

I had to relinquish the computer to my partner for the last hour or so, and so I went back to the book I'm currently reading: Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth. I was reading a chapter on examples of evolution happening "before our very eyes" when, towards the end of the chapter, I was pleasantly surprised to find him commenting, in his idiosyncratically clear prose, on, guess what, "living fossils". Could it be more appropriate? Incidentally, Lingula is an example of a living fossil whose ancestor lived a quarter of a billion years ago, so my previous remark upthread about how simple it is to find examples of little or no evolutionary change by showing young fossils alongside their living ancestors was incomplete: you can also find very old fossils.At any rate, there is no law against slow rates of evolution, and living fossils are no problem for the theory of evolution. I don't expect Calypsis4's answer any time soon, so I'll leave this as my closing remark in this thread (for now).

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Calypsis, a simple question, if you don't mind. Why are there no fossils of bats in the oldest layers of the geologic column? If all animals where created six thousand years ago, and did not evolve since, then surely we should find some bat fossils in the oldest layers. Yet they are completely devoid of them. Can you explain this, please?Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.