Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?

My opinion is that the fossil record does not indicate evolution because I dont think that their is enough intermediate or transitional fossils to be evidence of "TOE"I think the math would be summed to if we had 1% of the entire fossil record recorded as transitional or intermediates skeletions that would be enough to say that the fossil record indicated "toe"Thank You
Sonic

Test, test, testAdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Also removed the quotation marks, from around the entire topic title (after my initial posting of this message).The reason(s):
1)I don't like quotation marks around the entire title.and/or2)As a test to see if I can get accused of censorship again.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-29-2003]

It seems there are a couple of issues to discuss:
1)Is there any evidence indicative of the validaty of the ToE. Specifically is there data to support the transitions between taxa higher than the species level (or is that genera that you want? )2)Is there enough data?I think we have agreed that there is some data. But I'm not sure about that. What have we agreed to?As for the enough, I would have to ask how you arrive at the 1%.I think you are saying that 1% of all fossils found should be a transitional (I'm not at all sure that we agree on what a transitional is though). That suggests that 1% of all individual organisms should be a transitional assuming that individuals get fossilized and found at random.Do you think that, if you look around, 1% of all things are a 'transitional'?

Personally, I take the fossil record as strong evidence in support of the fact of evolution - The nature of the populations of life on earth has changed down through time.Chains of morphological simularities also give support to the theory of evolution - That is that later forms are decendents of the earlier forms.Of course Bones, I'm a geologist (sort of), not a biologist.Moose

sonicI have a quesion for you. It would appear to me that you do not argue that evolution did not happen,but that the number of transitional fossils is not enough to convince you of macroevolution. Is this correct?

Imo, there ought to be millions, if not billions of transitionals -- so many that it would be without question.

Alright Buz, I give up - why should there be billions of transitionals?

quote:

---

Alright Buz, I give up - why should there be billions of transitionals?

---

Because it would take uncountable billions of transitionals to evolve everything from slime to sublime.

Every fossil is a transitional, if you look at it correctly. Every species is a transitional between what itwas and what it will be. Every individual - even you - is a transition between their parents and their offspring.It's like going from New York to L.A. and expecting a "transitional city" - a city located in Missouri that has both the Empire State Bulding and the Golden Gate Bridge. What you're looking for doesn't exist, but doesn't have to exist for you to go from New York to L.A.

And you expect that all those transitionals were preserved? Even the soft-bodied ones? That two billion years of Earth history would have left them completely untouched? That they would all be easily accessible at the surface, and somehow unaffected by erosion and weathering? That scientists would know they were there, that they were important, and could gain access to the land? That they would even have permission to excavate the site?Well, you are right. There are billions of transitionals. Scientists have only managed to reconstruct some of them though.The Rock Hound

Sonic, This post addressed your concerns, I believe.Mark

Yes, Nosyned, I am concerned about the connection between one fossil and the next. The 1% idea is just an idea, nothing more. It is based from a while ago when I was reading a websight in favour of evolution and the fossil record and they where talking about creationists view and how they continue to say that there should be more transitional fossils. The guy was saying that we cannot have all of the fossils because we only have 1%. I am saying that well I assume he is right that is that we have 1%, So I came to a figure which says well if we have 1% of the fossils why can't 1% of all of the fossils be transitional fossils. (Transitional fossils meaning: intermediates, fossils between species or family)Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

Yes that is correct sidelined. But the process which Micro would reach Macro is being debated in another topic.http://EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution -->EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution--------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

I replied to you mark24.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Well, if you want 1% of all fossils to be transitionals (with no good reason for the 1% at all) then we need to know what a transitional (at any level) is.What is a transitional in the case of a living animal? What transitional characteristics would you expect to fossilize.By the way, I can't guess at where someone would come up with a number like 1% of all fossils. I would guess that we are closer to having 0.000001 % of all fossils and 0.0000000000001 % of the fossils of all things with bones that have lived). Taphonomists might be able to make a better estimate of those numbers but it is probably silly to assign one number on something that is bound to vary so widely.