Fossil Record as the Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution

I think I just listed some which fall outside both special creation and evolution. In a way I suppose they are hybrids (although one is "introduction" of species that may very well have "evolved" elsewhere).Fossil Records give evidence that great changes occured down through time, one set of species being replaced by other sets of species. I did not understand that Ned was meaning that broad a definition of "evolution", and was going by the title of the thread that it was referring to species CHANGING into other species through reproductive mechanisms (though this could be lamarkian and not darwinian).If I am mistaken then my argument does not mean anything. Otherwise I am just saying that it is circular reasoning to give as evidence for the correctness of a model, the evidence used to build the model, or how well such evidence fits the model. That I totally agree with, and you almost don't even need the fossils for that (since YE is in there pure geologic evidence would work).------------------
holmes

"Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephan Jay GouldTop Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyIt's been a long time since I read this, but I recall it as being one of the more (IMO) significant pages.Moose

Ok, there are other models that might fit just the fossil record. I think that you have to ignore a lot of details of the fossil record to make them work though. I'd say that was enough of that wouldn't you?

I think its more the ignoring of physical experience that make them work. Although it may be easy to make that assessment now, it seems pretty obvious that everything changes at least minutely through reproduction, so why not many little changes leading to larger ones over long periods of time?Back then I guess it was easy to believe in magic and monsters (including things like lycnthropes). Nowadays its kind of silly to advance models based on such speculations as if they were serious contenders.Still, Lovecraft's ideas regarding aliens which visited the planet in the beginning of earth (while there were some primitive native bacterial type of life), then creating larger animals the earth holds today, and some mutating because that early life was prone to change itself, is plausible. We just need to find their city buried under the polar ice caps.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

How about I try to give a start on what the fossil record looks like. This is only a tiny little overview of it and maybe we will need a lot more as we go along. (I'm also doing this from memory as I don't think that a few 10's of Myrs one way or the other matters to the overall framework)
1) The oldest rocks on earth are just over 4 Gyrs old (4,000,000,000 years).
2) The earliest things that appear to be fossils of unicellular life are about 3.5+ Gyrs old. These are reasonably likely to be fossils of life but there can be some arguement.
3) Way before 1 Gyr there is good evidence of unicellular life.
4) From 4 Gyr to 1 Gyr no evidence has been found for multicellular life.
6) At about 600 Myr multicellular life becomes apparent.
7) At about 550 Myr mulitcelluar life with many basic body plans and some hard parts allowing for fossilization are found.
8) Todays basic phyla are present at the 550 Myr mark but are very simple. (e.g., worm like with no 'real' backbone to represent cordates (that is US) )
9) Somewhere around 350 Myr we have fish, insects, worms, etc. We have no reptiles, amphibians, mammals or birds found at all.
10) Amphibians appear next. There are no reptiles etc.
11) Around 250 to 300 Myrs ago we find reptiles.
12) Somewhere around 200+ Myrs ago we find a series of fossils that show a clear transition from reptile features to mammels. And mammels are found from then on.
13) This sort of pattern continues. There are clear points where new taxonomic forms appear for the first time. They then show ongoing diversification after that.
14) Another pattern that becomes more apparent in the last 100 Myrs is that the life forms become more and more like those alive to day.
15) There is no monotonic pattern from smaller to bigger.
16) There are sudden, dramatic losses of large numbers of species and genera.
17) After these large losses there is a diversification of the survivors to fill empty niches.
Ok, how is that for the fossil record? Do you need a lot more detail? If you do I think you might need to go to specialized sources. When you know what the fossil record actually is *then* you can comment on it's value in drawing conclusions. Until you do know you have nothing to comment about and would be well to say "I don't know."
The is but one theory that explains all of the above and a very, very, very large amount more. It may not be "proven" but it sure looks like a very good horse to bet on in this race.
Now back to the two meanings of the word evolution. One is the theory of how all this happened (the ToE) that is what is not
"proven". The other meaning is that life has, through some mechanism, changed and diversified on earth. That meaning is "proven", it is simply the facts as laid out above. You don't have any problem with that, do you?

---

Thank you Ned, that’s great and very helpful, actually I'll print that for future use and reference, but the dating methods that produce the millions of years are very inaccurate, I don't want to elaborate on that without starting a new topic though...As I understand it so far the fossil record shows older to younger, less complex to more complex specimens, thus supporting the theory of evolution's EVOLVING concept. That is what I was trying to say, whether it came out clear or not.------------------
"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -JesusJohn 3:3

'But the fossil record DOES NOT support a one time, young earth creation of all life.'Why can't it?
First there is the ASSUMPTION of millions of years, as can be fully seen in Ned's list. The fact is the rocks indicate sudden catastrophic burial. Proven through incredible preservation.(and why not?)
Secondly, we have these 'living fossils' which have not evolved in millions of years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the 'living fossil' hasn't evolved in millions and millions of years, it simply is never going to. Add the lack of transitionals,(or rather none) and animals going from 'bigger' to 'smaller' and hey presto - all of a sudden it looks like creation. So, rid all these facts and THEN the evolution theory can have exclusive rights to the fossils. But ofcourse These are the FACTS. Are you going to deny 'living fossils'? Or 'preservation'?
If these facts cannot be rid, then your statement is not correct. Maybe neither evolution or Creation can be fully proven by fossils, which doesn't mean we have to assume evolution.

quote:

---

Why can't it?
First there is the ASSUMPTION of millions of years, as can be fully seen in Ned's list. The fact is the rocks indicate sudden catastrophic burial. Proven through incredible preservation.(and why not?)

---

1. The fossil record does *not* indicate sudden catastrophic burial. Minute, fragile details are carefully preserved in many places, ranging from bones of tiny animals covered in hard rock to tree roots in multiple tree horizons to nice neat river varves.2. What you see isn't preserved organisms. What you see is fossilized organisms. There's a big difference. Fossilized organisms have much of the organic material leached out and replaced by rock. Since different types of rocks leach at different rates, what replaces a fossil in the ground is going to be a different mineral as a whole than the surrounding rock; that is why fossils stand out and can be isolated.Naturally, fossilization is an incredibly slow process (there is not a single remain of homo sapiens sapiens that has fossilized even remotely close to as much as, say, a tyrannosaur.

quote:

---

Secondly, we have these 'living fossils' which have not evolved in millions of years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the 'living fossil' hasn't evolved in millions and millions of years, it simply is never going to.

---

1) Such creatures are few and far between.2) Such creatures *have* evolved, just not as dramatically as their neighbors. Skeletal changes are still quite obvious.3) If a creature's niche doesn't change, there is no reason for the creature itself to change.Name a specific creature so that I can go into details.

quote:

---

Add the lack of transitionals,(or rather none)

---

I posted this just the other day: here's just the major steps (there are many more smaller steps that have been discovered) from humans down to jawless fish, and the ages that they're dated to (which, I'm sure it's just a coincidence to you, matches the morphometry). Please explain where the supposed gaps are.(*note - some of these may be "sister species" - I can elaborate on that if you would like)
(**note - dates with a ~ are rough approximates from the time period)1) H. Sapiens Sapiens (us) (40kya)
2) H. Sapiens (500kya)
3) H. Erectus (1.8 Mya)
4) H. Habilis (2.5 Mya)
5) A. Africanus (3.0 Mya)
6) A. Afarensus (3.9 Mya)
7) Ardipithecus Ramidus (5.8 Mya)
8) Orrorin Tugenesis (6 Mya)
9) Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7Mya)
10) Kenyapithecus (16 Mya)
11) Dryopithecus (~16Mya)
12) Proconsul Africanus (~20 Mya)
13) Aegyptopithicus (~30 Mya)
14) Parapithecus (~32 Mya)
15) Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (~35 Mya)
16) Pelycodus, etc (~50 Mya)
17) Cantius (~50 Mya)
18) Palaechthon, Purgatorius (~60 Mya)
19) Kennalestes, Asioryctes (~80 Mya)
20) Pariadens kirklandi (95 Mya)
21) Vincelestes neuquenianus (135 Mya)
22) Steropodon galmani (~140 Mya)
23) Kielantherium and Aegialodon (~140 Mya)
24) Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
25) Peramus (~155 Mya)
26) Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (~205 Mya)
27) Kuehneotherium (~205 Mya)
28) Sinoconodon (~208 Mya)
29) Adelobasileus cromptoni (225 Mya)
30) Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Mya)
31) Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Mya)
32) Probelesodon (~225 Mya?)
33) Exaeretodon (239 Mya)
34) Probainognathus (239-235 Mya)
35) Diademodon (240 Mya)
36) Cynognathus (240 Mya)
37) Thrinaxodon (~240 Mya)
38) Dvinia (Permocynodon) (~245 Mya)
39) Procynosuchus (~245 Mya)
40) Biarmosuchia (~255 Mya)
41) Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon (~270 Mya)
42) Varanops (~275 Mya)
43) Haptodus (~290 Mya)
44) Archaeothyris (~315 Mya)
45) Clepsydrops (~325 Mya)
46) Protoclepsydrops haplous (~325 Mya)
47) Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
48) Hylonomus, Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
49) Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (~325 Mya)
50) Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (~335 Mya)
51) Temnospondyls (Pholidogaster) (330 Mya)
52) Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (~360 Mya)
53) Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (~365 Mya)
54) Obruchevichthys (370 Mya)
55) Panderichthys, Elpistostege (370 Mya)
56) Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (~375 Mya)
57) Osteolepis (~385 Mya)
58) Palaeoniscoids (Cheirolepis, Mimia) (~400 Mya)
59) Acanthodians(?) (~420 Mya)Want me to dig up pictures?

quote:

---

and animals going from 'bigger' to 'smaller' and hey presto

---

You do realize that that is complete nonsense, right? There are more species of tiny dinosaurs than there are of large ones. There were megafauna covering earth until H. Sapiens Sapiens showed up on the scene, as well as miniscule species. There is not even the slightest size pattern in the fossil record - I mean, go check out the sizes of the species in the transition list and compare them to their contemporaries, for God's sake!

quote:

---

But ofcourse These are the FACTS. Are you going to deny 'living fossils'? Or 'preservation'?

---

On what planet?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-10-2003]

quote:

---

'Please explain where the supposed gaps are.'

---

Well, we already know about the 'so called' transitionals of humans. So you can tick them off my list. As for the other nice complicated names, that's all very well but no actual and definate transitionals have been found. Even those blokes down at Cambridge who where evolutionist told me that. So naturally I agree with Darwin, that the fossils are indeed the worst part of his theory.

quote:

---

'1) Such creatures are few and far between.'

---

What? - Frogs, starfish, fish, white sharks, all the known species of today that are found fossilized.

quote:

---

'You do realize that that is complete nonsense, right?

---

That's funny because only last week was a scientist showing me a sharks tooth as big as my hand which now is thumbnail size. The same with dragon flies. The same with croc's the same with insects, the same with beasts. Everything lives shorter and smaller than it did. Do you wnat me to ignore the evidence placed in front of my eyes?

quote:

---

2) Such creatures *have* evolved, just not as dramatically as their neighbors.

---

So your telling me a creature I recognise (how do I recognise it?) has evolved even though it hasn't - LOL

quote:

---

As for the other nice complicated names, that's all very well but no actual and definate transitionals have been found.

---

So that's it? You just ignore the evidehce you are given? That's the best you can do? Sorry, it's not very convincing.Perhaps you should start a thread on "transitionals". First you can tell us what you think they would look like. What criteria would you use to decide that something is a transitional?Then we can feed them to you one at a time and you can see what you think. It seems you got a bit to much for you to absorb all at once. You've been told that there are no transitionals and it must be a great shock to find out you have been lied to.Which *speicies* are still around? There are still members of the same genera around in some cases but not spieces that I am aware of. Megalodon (Carcharodon megalodon) was *not* a great white (Carcharodon carcharias). It was similar (if you ignore the fact that it was HUGE ) and lived reasonably recently so that fact that the genus is still around isn't too surprising is it?

quote:

---

So your telling me a creature I recognise (how do I recognise it?) has evolved even though it hasn't

---

Hasn't? If it is not the same speicies it hasn't evolved? Could you explain that please?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-10-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-10-2003]

quote:

---

Well, we already know about the 'so called' transitionals of humans. So you can tick them off my list. As for the other nice complicated names, that's all very well but no actual and definate transitionals have been found. Even those blokes down at Cambridge who where evolutionist told me that. So naturally I agree with Darwin, that the fossils are indeed the worst part of his theory.

---

Again, I'll ask: Where are the gaps?

quote:

---

Frogs

---

Name one species around the time of, say, hylonomous that resembles a modern frog. Go on, try. The earliest proto-frogs are salamander-like creatures from about 260mya. By 225 mya, their legs began to be elongated, and the pelvis began to line up with the spine (indicating becoming steadily more jumping-oriented). In more recent times, the tail vertebrae fused into the urostyle, and have adapted more specialized control mechanisms.

quote:

---

starfish

---

The earliest echinoderms - very primitive creatures, whose first ancestors resembled a sea lilly - appear in the late Precambrian/early Cambrian; they don't diversify until the Triassic (with some looking superficially like modern starfish), although they still remain rare and very specialized. They don't really take off until the permian radiation (especially crinoids), which is where you begin to see species that look like modern starfish.

quote:

---

fish

---

I can't believe you actually tried to paint such a broad category with a single brush. You didn't even separate jawless from bony fish, a separation that took place during the silurian, if I recall correctly.

quote:

---

white sharks

---

Which you can see evolving from jawless fish in the devonian and radiating from rays and skates. Shark teeth and scales have been a mixed blessing; while we've been able to witness the continual change of shark's teeth through early history (when many things weren't fossilizing well), the downside is that they don't report on the overall morphology of the creature. Sharks are actually one of the closest cases to Darwin's original prediction - they are chronomorphs (species that show only gradualism, not PE).The earliest shark scales are from about 455 Mya; however, they are so different from modern shark scales, some question whether the species should yet be called "true sharks". The scales gradually change, until about 420 mya, there is little dispute that they should be referred to as sharks. Then, at about 400 mya, you start getting the teeth. They're two-pronged, a pattern that slowly changes to the more modern form over the next 50 mya. The first skeletal features start to be found from 380Mya. It had a large spine in front of a long, low dorsal fin covered in many fin spines, and a rearward spine on the back of its skull; it was only found in freshwater deposits. Its body was somewhat eel-shaped as a whole.Ancient sharks differed from modern sharks in many respects, which change slowly over time to what we see today. Devonian sharks had a short, rounded nose with long jaws, something that has reversed since then to allow for a more powerful bite. Early shark jaws were fixed to the braincase in the front and back (modern sharks only attach at the back, which allows them to protrude their jaws to help "suck in" prey). The braincase and olfactory capsules were relatively small, suggesting a (relatively) poor sense of smell and less developed brain. As mentioned, early shark teeth have two cusps (if you believe fossils were sorted, why did two-cusp shark teeth usually migrate down (some shark species retain this), but one-cusp always migrate up? There are millions and millions of fossilized shark teeth, and every last one follows this pattern). Early sharks had rigid triangular pectoral fins (allowing for less mobility), with the earliest sharks having somewhat eel-like fins. Early shark vertebra were completely uncalcified (modern sharks have calcified bands), and were all fairly similar to each other (modern sharks have "sculpted" vertebra that fit together better for swimming). This would have made them less powerful swimmers.

quote:

---

all the known species of today that are found fossilized.

---

You know, you just show your ignorance on the topic by bringing up many of these species.

quote:

---

hat's funny because only last week was a scientist showing me a sharks tooth as big as my hand which now is thumbnail size.

---

The earliest sharks were fairly small. Sharks got larger and then smaller again. The tooth that you saw was probably from a Carchardon megalodon - which are from under 25 mya. Very, very recent.

quote:

---

The same with dragon flies.

---

And, at the same time period... ur-ants, the ancestor of both bees and ants - a rather diminuative critter. They had both large and small - and ample species of both! Speaking of ur-ants, that was yet another prediction of evolution... genetic and structural analysis indicated that bees and ants were of the same stock, but had evolved separate lines... and sure enough, there was great excitement when the first ur-ants were found.

quote:

---

The same with croc's the same with insects, the same with beasts.

---

Want me to go into crocodiles? "insects" and "beasts" are too general, be more specific.

quote:

---

Everything lives shorter and smaller than it did.

---

Flat-out utterly incorrect. Do some reading before you post such things. The line of human evolution has for the most gets *smaller* as you go further back - check out the species cited. Also, how do you get lifespans from the fossil record? The only things that I can think of offhand that can be used for that are coral clocks and tree ring chronology (both of which show an older world than 6000 years)------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-10-2003]

First, define what you think a transitional fossil is, and then we will find one for you. Or better yet, explain why Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional fossil between reptiles and avians.Second, how many transitionals would make any nested hierarchie complete in your eyes? Lets say, between land animal and sea mammmal for example. How many transitionals do you require, and I mean an exact number. Otherwise, no matter how many are found you are going to want more. I show you 1 and 2, and you ask where 1.5 is. Find 1.5 and you want 1.25 and 1.75. See the problem? We have to go on what we have found so far.However, I bet if Darwin saw the number of fossils we have today, he wouldn't have claimed it was the worst part of his theory. The current Hominid skull series alone would have probably been enough to buckle his knees.

'If it is not the same speicies it hasn't evolved?'My point is a 'living fossil' is called just that because it has been found in the fossils and then found alive. And apparantly unevolved. So my question is, if it hasn't evolved, who says it ever did or ever will?'It seems you got a bit to much for you to absorb all at once.'Ofcourse, as you say Nosyned complications don't necessarily prove much. So parts of extinct animals and living animals have fancy names - Big deal it wont change the facts.'Which *spieces* are still around?'I have seen fossils of huge insects that are recognisable (recognisable?) huge - yes evolved - no.

Hasn't the 'line of skulls' been done already. Note the promonent forehead dissapears and reappears. The last three I admitt look similar, the rest could be apes.'Flat-out utterly incorrect. Do some reading before you post such things.'I admitt I don't know this million years or that million years, or those million years.
You say do some reading, but it was a geologist telling me these things. You still havent got rid of the living fossils. You can know every species on earth but you wont be able to change simple facts. Even the 'cambridge report' on fossils was more honest and they were evolutionist.'The tooth that you saw was probably from a Carchardon megalodon - which are from under 25 mya'The man that you saw was probably an elephant and was 2 million years old.'Also, how do you get lifespans from the fossil record?'the bigger they are the longer their lifespan. Noticed how simple it can be.'The earliest proto-frogs are salamander-like creatures from about 260mya.'My mum is 400 my old.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-10-2003]

Do me a favour, take out millions of years to prove to me your looking at the facts without presumption. One year at the museum it said this that and the other was 300 million years old. The next year it said this that and the other was 350 million years old. I obviously didn't realise I hadn't been the museum for 50 million years.

quote:

---

Hasn't the 'line of skulls' been done already. Note the promonent forehead dissapears and reappears. The last three I admitt look similar, the rest could be apes.

---

Wait, are you trying to say that you expect features to constantly move in a certain direction, as if guided? That may be an argument against guided evolution, but not against evolution itself. "could be apes"? What more do you want? You insisted that there's a gap - to quote the phrase, "put up or shut up". Where is it?Additionally, do you understand why, seing fossils like this, and finding that dating methods (which confirm each other) placed them in strata in the line (as presented above) - and that this occurs with essentially all species (excluding those which are too brittle to preserve well, such as bats, or those in poor preservation environments) - often far better even than hominids - why the theory of evolution was developed, from the earlier "multiple creations" theory (that was created to explain why things were consistantly in particular layers)?

quote:

---

I admitt I don't know this million years or that million years, or those million years. You say do some reading, but it was a geologist telling me these things. You still havent got rid of the living fossils. You can know every species on earth but you wont be able to change simple facts. Even the 'cambridge report' on fossils was more honest and they were evolutionist.

---

I went in depth into all the fossils that you asked for - what more did you want? Did you even read it?Which report are you referring to?

quote:

---

quote:

---

'The tooth that you saw was probably from a Carchardon megalodon - which are from under 25 mya'

---

​

The man that you saw was probably an elephant and was 2 million years old.

---

I'll bet you 20$ that if you go ask, the scientist will say that it's a megalodon. Want to take me up on that bet?Pretty much everyone who collects shark teeth has one. They're the largest species of shark ever to inhabit the earth - and they're all in very recent strata.

quote:

---

the bigger they are the longer their lifespan.

---

Tell that to a vet. Then get a great dane and a beagle, and see which lives longer.

quote:

---

'The earliest proto-frogs are salamander-like creatures from about 260mya.'

​

My mum is 400 my old.

---

Show me the multiple dating methods which all agree that she is 400.

quote:

---

Do me a favour, take out millions of years to prove to me your looking at the facts without presumption. One year at the museum it said this that and the other was 300 million years old. The next year it said this that and the other was 350 million years old. I obviously didn't realise I hadn't been the museum for 50 million years.

---

Specifics, please? Even without dating, you still need to explain the sorting, and the nice smooth transitions. You need to explain why fossils change dramatically as you go up and down in the fossil record, but not side to side - and, no matter where you look in the world, if a species lived worldwide, it always exists in the exact same fossil ordering. And you also need to stop the nonsense about fossils being "size sorted", which is about as true as 1=2 - even the most cursory knowledge of archaeology would teach you that.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-10-2003]