reply to post by MrXYZ
When it comes to evolution, the evidence is incredibly strong and in over 150 years no one has debunked evolution or found something that
wouldn't fit the theory.”
Of course it’s been disproved many times over now, but since the (tptb) majority of “scientists” as well as the academia fully support and fund
the theory how else can these evidences be accepted? Besides who wants to lose “credibility” and funding or for that matter be ridiculed?
Anyway, per your statement above (as well as others) I take it that you’re fully convinced that the “fossil records” provides strong evidence of
evolution and that it “fit the theory” very well. Correct?
If so, then there should be no problem providing us a clear evidence to support the theory - beyond any reasonable doubt.
In other words, the fossil records should provide us clear evidence of for example the “transitional ancestors” of species in the evolutionary
So if we take for example the line of descent in my last post:
4) ...then “gradually” (this “jawless filter feeding fish...like lamprays”) evolved “eyes and jaws”
[“Eusthenopteron / Agnatha”?]
...but “during the summer some swamps and lakes dried up so some of this 'fish' evolved a primitive lung to breath air” - [“emergence of
tetrapods - Panderichthys /Acanthostega / Ichthyostega / Hynerton”?].
5) ... while their “brains were getting bigger”... they then somehow evolved into amphibians but “still with a fish like tail”. They lay their
eggs in water...where they are easily eaten... [Acanthostega / Ichthyostega ?]
the evidence should readily be available. There should be a transitional fossil evidence between the “ Eusthenopteron / Agnatha” species and the
“Panderichthys /Acanthostega / Ichthyostega / Hynerton” species for the theory to be believable / on solid ground. Am I correct?
So the question is:
Does it exist?
If it does – can a “layman” interpret it correctly as such? Or does it need to be interpreted by an “expert”?
As for the “mountain of evidence” if you honestly look at them w/o any preconceived ideas you will come to the same conclusions as I did. That is,
the evidence don't support the theory very well. Thus one must use other methods in order to “fit the theory”.
Here are just some of what I found during my research on fossil records.
Interestingly on top of the list is this statement made by your favorite evolution sites: TalkOrigins:
2. The Problem of Paleospecies
The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as
sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various
other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps
shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as
fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts
may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and
that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of
the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.
Any idea why the statements?
Here's my interpretation. Whether Paleospecies/transitional species/intermediate species – the fossil record cannot provide clear evidence due to
circumstances explained above. There’s no way around it.
So to get the 'ball rolling' so to speak – much of the evidence are interpreted into what I call “circumstantial fossil evidence”. An
interpretation that is widely open to different opinions / wild assumptions / wild imaginations / data manipulations. Of course if one wants not to be
considered 'ignoramus' or 'against science, old fashioned', a religious nut, etc, one must accept the interpretation.
But ask yourself this, if:
"The fossil record is incomplete...the equivalent of a partially burned book...from which a few pages are retrieved”
how solid or incredibly strong then is the evidence?
And speaking of “books”, my hs teacher used to remind me of this salient truth – that is, “not to judge a book by its cover” or as I put it
“not to judge a book by a few pages” or else you’ll arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Is it possible that these “mountains of evidence” are/can be interpreted in such a way that they appear to be “facts” and not real facts
Case in point: Ida – proclaimed as the “Missing Link”.
Here's another interesting/telling statement – whether it's an accidental admission or not it's quite fascinating (btw, this site was provided to
me to support evolution)
Here’s what the author said>
“one of the interesting things about evolution and paleontology is that its sometimes nearly impossible to tell whether you're looking at two
different kinds of animals, or just two different version of the same thing. Because the way evolution works, everything can be described as another
version of anything else you want to put next to it.” Read the rest here> locolobo.org...
So if “everything can be described as another version of anything else you want to put next to it” in evolution theory, then how solid is the
Reason why this so is very obvious imho:
The fossil record is incomplete.
Since this is a fact, the findings / studies are then based on either a:
1) single jaw bone,
2) a single tooth,
3) couple of teeth,
4) part of a skull, a leg bone, etc, etc...
Then interpreted in way that to disagree means that you're ignorant on the subject.
Here are some examples of hundreds of accepted evidence:
The Evolution of Lamnoid Sharks
The lamnoids (order Lamniformes) include many of the most famous and instantly-recognizable of sharks. The Goblin Shark, Sandtiger, threshers,
Megamouth, Basking, and the Great White are all members of this group. From the dim depths of prehistory, these sharks have left a rich fossil record.
Any idea how rich this fossil record is/was?
As a group, lamnoids are characterized by heavily-built, solid teeth that have proven durable against the onslaught of erosion over geological
time. As a result, their ancestors have left many beautiful and highly informative fossil teeth. In addition, the lamnoids have heavily calcified but
fragile vertebral centra which are also sometimes preserved. Beyond these structural basics, only a few assorted fossilized bits and pieces survive
- some of them squirreled away in private collections, where their true value remains hidden from paleontologists.”
So based on fossilized teeth one can conclude how sharks evolved and construct how it supposed to look liked? Is it possible that the tooth/teeth
found is a variety of the shark family instead of purely evolving from one form to another shark form? These reminds again of the finch family?
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants.
This evidence is based on what?
Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the
single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort
of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.
As for assumptions, is it easy to tell where the facts stops and where assumptions begins in the statements below?
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, had several skeletal features becoming more mammalian, particularly in the
teeth, which began to show the first true rooted canines, and not the sort of fangs snakes have. Subsequent species lost the last vestiges of
strictly-reptilian bones, and developed the ear drum, another exclusively mammalian trait. Throughout this sequence, we also see an improvement in the
ligaments and muscularity to show a steady progression from very primitive lizard-like things to more advanced and adaptive "reptiles" that were
also arguably mammals of one sort or another at the same time. In fact, there were several of these which blur the line between reptiles and mammals
so much that in some cases, its difficult to state which class these things should belong to. Procynosuchus (latest Permian) the first cynodont, was
already a sort of dog-like pseudo-lizard which quickly begat some very lizard-like primitive quasi-mammals, like thrinaxodon. These early Triassic
cynodonts had very definite canine teeth and are considered by many to be one of the first mammals, even though they weren't quite complete mammals,
and still bore some vaguely-reptilian vestigial traits. These were also among the very few mammal-like semi-reptiles to survive the Permian
extinction, an event even more devastating than that which later brought on the demise of the dinosaurs. By the time we get to things like Cynognathus
(early Triassic, but suspected to have existed even earlier) we have a nearly complete mammal with just the slightest reptilian traits, like the
as-yet undistinguished uniform reptilian-style cheek teeth behind the definitely mammalian canines.
So again based on teeth – an entire species is constructed by assumptions / interpretations to support a preconceived idea or a theory.
Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one
layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional,
while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived
from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.
interpretation and assumptions based only on few clues and incomplete specimen! Presented as FACTS!
Here's some more:
The sparseness of the fossil record means that organisms usually exist long before they are found in the fossil record – this is known as the
Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, as evidence comes exclusively from biological and chemical signatures in rocks and
very sparse fossils.
Again, from an evolution site explaining the limitations of the fossil record.
“The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of
limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils
in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major
evolutionary lineages. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often
popularly referred to as "missing links".
There is a gap of about 100 million years between the beginning of the Cambrian period and the end of the Ordovician period. The early Cambrian period
was the period from which numerous fossils of sponges, cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), echinoderms (e.g., eocrinoids), molluscs (e.g., snails) and
arthropods (e.g., trilobites) are found. The first animal that possessed the typical features of vertebrates, the Arandaspis, was dated to have
existed in the later Ordovician period. Thus few, if any, fossils of an intermediate type between invertebrates and vertebrates have been found,
although likely candidates include the Burgess Shale animal, Pikaia gracilens, and its Maotianshan shales relatives, Myllokunmingia, Yunnanozoon,
Haikouella lanceolata, and Haikouichthys.
Again these “mountain of evidence” - when you looked at them closely and honestly they turn out to be just mere “mole hills” imho.
As for “imaginations” was the ancestors of elephant shown in the picture below based of scientific facts or pure imagination of an artist's pure
interpretations (feed to him/her)?
Now, please don't get me wrong as others have – my intention in providing these glaring facts is not to bash the theory or as some say against
science. No but to show why I'm not convinced of the sweeping proclamation by believers that the evolution theory is a “fact, fact!”. And that
those who don't believe it are idiots.
Now as for the “Leap” (of faith).
Do these statements factually accurate or do they require a leap of faith to believe that they indeed happen?
“he may not look like you or I but this odd fish is becoming a blueprint for our own bodies”
“evolution starts to give them weapons to fight back”
“with these four limbs designed our ancestors finally haul themselves out of water onto land”
“they evolved a hard water proof casing which protects the young inside from the drying sun so they can be laid on land”
– excerpts from Walking with Monsters.
Dr. Sagan's version:
“ ... a splendidly new invention came along -- a “hard shelled egg laid on the land”
I guess this is to be understood as the link between amphibians and reptiles.”
That some molecules crossed a critical threshold from inanimate to animate is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists, but
four billion intervening years have erased the details of this passage.
Predictably, because of the inherent problems with the “fossil records” another method/concept must be found. Thus “organic evolution based on
gene evidence”” was devised / invented in order to prop up the theory. This one has gained much support in the scientific community.
And lately, anything that has the ability to change/adapt is now considered evolution “happening right in front of us”
Such a leap from 'it happened millions of years ago' to 'happening right now' – and if you don't believe it you are considered ignorant.
On the other hand – Creation is factually accurate and agrees fully with known scientific facts. Next thread will show this to be so.