quote:
And finally, do we really have enough fossil evidence to even come up with some of the conclusions in the evolution sites - I say this because there is a book called 'Bones of Contention' that shows the amount of fossil evidence for human evolution to be pitifully low (and it does not support creationsism)
Although hominid fossils are rare, that doesn't mean that humans did not evolve. A fairly large number of fossils have been found, and hominids have only been around for a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things. There are many species alive today which descend from creatures that left poor fossil records, but we don't assume that they have appeared by some method other than evolution.
Bats, for example, have fragile bones and live in places where their corpses are likely to rot quickly or be eaten by scavengers, rather than getting covered up by debris which allows them to be fossilized. Therefore, they do not leave a strong fossil record. We know they evolved though, because they bear similarities to other animals.
This website shows the bone structures of a human arm and a pterodactyl, bird, and bat wing. The similarities are great enough to be considered evidence for a common ancestor. Barring molecular evidence, they all have a humerus, radius, and ulna, as well as at least a couple finger bones, though each example has been adapted in a different manner. The bird, bat, and human all have shoulder blades and they all appear to have clavicles.
It is important to look not only at fossils that appear to follow a line, like horse fossils, but at many different organisms, and try to find similarities between them. This knowledge can enable us to better understand the evolutionary pathways that life forms followed to reach their current status, even if the fossil record is sparse.
This message has been edited by Gary, 07-27-2004 12:47 AM
™ Version 4.2