Fossil Record as the Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution

"proven"?
We simply go with the very best explanation we have right now. It has stood up very well to a great many attempt to falsify it.What pattern of "smaller to bigger"? Is that all you know about the fossil record? Perhaps we should back up a step and you should describe what you think it does show. We can't discuss theories explaning the evidence until we have some idea of what that evidence is. It sounds, so far, from your posts, that you have no idea what the fossil record actually looks like.You have "heard theories" none of which are totally valid? One of them hasn't been falisfied and has shown enormous power to predict what we do see. Only one!You have none of your own to suggest as a replacement? Let's back up to the evidence then and after that you might be able to find one you like better.

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?

That a separate thread Hare. The one that this one spun off of. You could elaborate there if you want.{Note from Adminnemooseus - In all fairness to the Hare, that other topic was closed when he posted the above. Indeed, his posting the above was the prime reason for me re-opening the other topic. I quoted the Hare's message in the re-opening message over there.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-09-2003]

We aren't saying it "proves" the model. It is the evidence used to arrive at the model in the first place. It is powerful evidence for it anyway. All the evidence explained by a model is "for" it. It isn't always as impressive and convincing as further evidence that is predicted by the model.However, it is evidence for the fact that evolution has occured separately from it being used as an input to the formulation of a model for how. Don't mix the two meanings of "evolution" up here.

The fossil record says that life at different times was different. I don't think this requires any biological extra assumptions. They do give a series of snapshots of what life was like at any given time. But that is *not* all that they tell us. They all so say that there were *changes* from one snapshot to the next.Getting to a mechanism of how life managed the changes does seem to require a uniformatarian assumption. That is that life forms gave birth to other life forms in a chain just as they do today. Now we have a problem of explaining how the differences could arise when that is going on. This becomes the ToE.But the change in life forms is there separately from that. To apply the word "evolution" (in our current form) to that change then requires the birth from previous forms assumption. So I will give you that one. If you don't want that assumption I guess you could stretch "evolution" to mean the overall change in life forms but I think that would be streaching it too far. I leave it up to someone else to suggest what word would be applied without the given assumption.All sorts of models could have worked? It is pretty hard to manage to find them. A large number of special creations is the only one that I'm aware of that seems to match the information. Can you suggest some others that have been considered.

I'm not sure (I'm stepping out into a space I don't really want to defend but just for fun let's go there) that it makes a big difference to the ToE if we accept Lamarke's inheritance of acquired characteristics as the mechanism for heredity.Let's see what happens. Darwin simple said that individuals were born different from their parents and then we selected.If acquired characteristics were as Lamarke said then we have individuals being born different from the form of their parents at the birth of the parents. The selection process can still be applied but now there is some greater chance that the modification will pass the selection sieve.It is a bit different but the overall model is the same.As for the other "models" they sound like special creations which I mentioned as a competing model already.Any comments?

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?

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]

It is hard to figure out why you can't get this (other than you don't want to).I don't care what it is popularly called. "Living fossil" is not a technical term. They are NOT the same speicies.Secondly, so what? There is nothing in the ToE that says something has to evolve. Why do you think that something has to?Recognizable doesn't make them the does it? If a particular body plan works well it has some chance of being evolved to. Why does this matter?"Big deal it won't change the facts" What are the facts then, exactly and in more detail please?

This is your level of response?You think you are arguing on the same level as the information being put in front of you. "My Mum is 400 old" Is that a deeply intellectual discussion?

You are giving us what you think you were told. In any case you were told this, not something published with error bars and the method of determining the value.Why on earth would you think this constitues a reasonable arguement.I get the impression that you are suggesting that the millions of years is wrong. I have bumped a thread which disucsses part of this. Why don't you jump in and give you evidence and profound reasoning on that topic?

Can you please explain what "facts" you are talking about?Could you also sohw the logic of why living fossils are a problem for the ToE? Could you also define a "living fossil" so we know what you are talking about?Also could you explain why the idea of a living fossil can indicate creation over evolution? You haven't offered any line of reasoning to follow yet.

But, Mike, I don't understand how this supports creation. You have yet to explain it to me so I can follow the reasoning.As far as believe others over 'them': This isn't the only piece of evidence. They have a bunch to explain not just one piece.

Another problem Mike. A very short memory. What about the skulls? They are evidence, they are fossils. You take a quick look at the pictures and carry right on pretending you know something about them.There are many, many 1,000's of fossils. What do you need to see? If you can describe that then perhaps we can show you.

Ah, good!
Then you are prepared to demonstrate why the millions of years is wrong? That is an important point of course. Perhaps it is more fundamental than changes in life. Even if you could see the changes if you don't believe they occured over millions of years then we don't need to bother with looking at them.Perhaps you can handle the dating problem then?