quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
The fossil record shows nothing. You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption. Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one? Now, given the assumption of evolution, that arrangement would come easy. The fossil record has not showed it to be true, it is merely consistent with your assumption. I mean, after all, the fossils could be related. But the fossils themselves do not teach us the relation. Would you admit that the assumption has to be made?
Yes, you are quite right its all about interpretation of data.
Evolutionary theory is suported by the fossil record.
The fossil record fits the facts, but was NOT the basis of
evolutionary theory.
In the 'Falsifying Creation' thread I have attempted to show that
the YEC, literal interpretation of genesis, does NOT fit the
observed fossil record. I beleive I have shown why this is the
case.
Without evolutionary or creationist theory super-imposed::
Fossils are found in geological strata.
Organisms classified in biology as simpler (not in evolutionary
terms I hasten to add) are found lower.
Certain types of organism are ALWAYS found below certain others
without exception.
Animals which exist now are not found in that form in the fossil
record (with one or two exceptions e.g. ceolocanths).
We can say without interpretation or inference, that those fossils
at lower levels were burried earliest.
We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and types
of animals existed at times when others did not.
That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literal
interpretation of the creation in genesis.
We must then seek some alternative explanation.
We can observe that some animal forms are similar, yet subtely
different from those above and below them in the fossil record,
and that these types never appear as contempories.
It is NOT just about size as in your horsey example. It is
skeletal similarity and apparent progression that tends to
support evolutionary theory.
And no, in all honesty I wouldn't put forward an evolutionary
scenario in the 2000 year example you give. I would (as
modern archeologists do) seek evidence within the layers (and
they would be layers in a mere 2000 years) which corroborated the
age. Beyond that, I would seek the same sequence elsewhere, and if
I could not find it, would not make any wild claims based upon
a single observation.
The fossil record is globally consistent, not just one or two
isolated examples.
™ Version 4.2
