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

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

How about this, I will remove my 1% idea since really it is just a lame defense at another lame defense. Lets focus on the similarities and try to see if we can come to a conclusion of the fossil record showing relatedness instead of similarities or does the fossil record just report similarites?.Thank You
Sonic

This information was posted on another thread, but I chose to move it to this thread because it is more relevent here.My response to this is the dating methods are not factual, we cannot depend on the dating methods at all.Read this page: Page not found – Evolution-Facts------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

Hey buzsaw, lets try not to use Micro and Macro terminology. The understanding of how micro became macro is a big problem currently in my mind.I would say it is better to say, what about the intermediate fossils which slide inbetween the fossils we have today? Intermediate fossils would represent life which had half working organs: organs which are part species before and part species after.------------------
Enlightend One
SonicP.S. Buzsaw if you want to join the discussion on micro and macro come here: http://EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution -->EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

While back I studied the fossil record because I was trying to show or see how the fossil record represented "toe". Here is one of those webpages.webpage 1: http://www.catholiceducation.org/...cles/science/sc0042.html Exactly, my point. If natural selction is factual lets say, it would remove these intermediate fossils or forms of life which would allow gradulism, making gradulism impossible.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

Explain please what you mean, if small changes can lead into big changes it would require what we call gradulism which requires species with fully working organs BUT it would appear phenotypical that that species had part this and part that, this process would continue untill what we have today, in other words we might have intermediate after intermediate after intermediate untill we have the transitional(i.e. what we do have in the fossil record) then not so intermediate, and not so intermediate again,(transitional) and not so intermediate again, and so on untill finally today.Yes some species would also have half working hearts, which would make it so they did not live for to long, less time persay. Of course the organism would have to function somewhat, but it would not function so good as it would have errors, like a 3rd heart beat by natural process.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

I dont see this thread you are talking about.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Maybe mine is different, not sure what you mean exactly. No not to that understanding. The understanding is: take for example the webpage posted by paulk in the other thread on the fossil record:
1.) Page Not Found | We cannot find your page (404 Error) | Memorial University of NewfoundlandFor me to consider the reptilian in this picture to become mammilian like it shows in this picture we need to represent this change with intermediate jaws and ear bones, and skulls, an brains which would ffit into the skulls, just more intermediates, this would be gradulism. I understand that we dont have all fossils and we may never have them all because of how they form and because of land problems, but that is the problem exactly, without the more fossils we have no evolution according to the fossil record, we need those changes in order to say that the fossil record is evidence of evolution. This is a really bad example, please refer to the example in this post.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Still dont see that thread dude, post a link please.I refer to the flood yes, but it seems to be you also chose your authoritive figure as to the effect of evolution. I think the creationist have a good arguement I dont think evolutionist have much of an arguement persoanlly. I find that the flood did happen. this is out side of this debate however. if there is a debate going on direct me to it please.If you approach a arguemnt with a bias opinion you are going to favour one side over the other regardless of what each say. You have to have no bias opinion. Something I am trying to form. I think evolution has a small argument currently, but creationist have a good point I think also. No bias opinion, I would think that would probably give evolution and creation a 50/50 chance. Neather is better then the other if you have no bias opinion. Only thing you can do is take what each say for grantid and come to a mathimatical conclusion as to what the chance is for each, the one with the better chance is the one more likely, but that does not mean the one more likly occured. I wont hold on to eather of them, I will just say this, one seems more relevent then the other, that is all. I have not come to this conclusion yet so, I will continue with this debate on the fossil record.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

Ok,I cannot say this is a smooth transition BUT I can see why people would think this is evidence. I need more fossil records regarding whatever species. I like to give this a chance of 3/3 or so. so far we have 1/1 need 2 more fossil records.You might ask if I have searched the fossil record why have I not seen these? I am not sure why I have not seen these, I just have not.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

True. Which critisms are you speaking about? Thanks for the info and I am presenting a good argument I think. We will see where it goes. Validation please?------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Yes. I dont like to base my belief off imagination if I am going to base it entirly from evidences. Yes, I am a creationist but I can use the fossil record as proof of the creation event by saying that all fossils are just skeletons, which appeared out of no where by removing the dating methods which are at best theoretical. No, I remove the dating methods because I simply dont trust them. If I remove the dateing methods it removes the time which would be explained to be used for the evolution of these parts and they become created parts because there is no time. This would also remove how long the earth has been around according to evolution and to the restrictions in the bibles guidlines. Which means perhaps the earth has been around for thousands of years instead. Note: this is all theory of mine, but for me to switch or adopt a new theory their has to be enough proof showing that it is possible that the fossil record is talking about evolution and not creation.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic