reply to post by tauristercus
Fossil evidence/missing link:
Here's another piece of the puzzle why Darwinian evolution (or for that matter – organic evolution) is seriously flawed right from the start.
The evidence that was used to prove it's truthfulness and accuracy was seriously incomplete and best of all, OPEN to wild assumptions and
interpretations. It is also full of “missing links” and an ever growing “gaps” which are getting harder and harder to bridge.
The evidence in questions is the fossil record.
(Which I think is the reason -lately- why a growing number of evolutionists are relying more and more on genetic evidence.)
Now please consider these facts:
Note: I’ll include just a few so as not to make the post long.
Let me start with Darwin’s own admission (more than a century ago – kinda’ ironic because it was already known way back then):
He asked this question:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can
be urged against the theory.” -- The Origin of Species.
Amazingly, this known fact was ignored by “scientists/evolutionists”, including Darwin himself for obvious reasons (knowingly/unknowingly) imho.
Prolly hoping that it will go away or somehow will get resolved in the future.
But the problem persisted. A fact that even notable evolutionists like Prof. G. L. Stebbins had to candidly admit. Notice what he said about the
seriousness of the problem:
“Evolutionists are impressed above all with the imperfection of the fossil record for this purpose.” ---- Processes of Organic Evolution, G.
And because of “the imperfection of the fossil record“, it's understandable why the Prof. said that:
“The fossil record is exactly the wrong kind for evolutionists who wish to learn how the major groups of organisms originated.” ----
Processes of Organic Evolution, G. L. Stebbins.
On this, other evolutionists admitted that:
“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life in space and time.
. . . This is because the data must be used circumstantially and no fine analysis . . . of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”
—Order: In Life (1972), p. 120. Edmund Samuel, Associate Professor of Biology, Antioch College, Ohio
As mentioned already, this was noted way back then. In fact Darwin made a dire prediction. That is, if it could be shown that groups of living things
“have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”
-- The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of ...
By Charles Robert Darwin p 282
Fatal indeed if it could be shown.
So what does the facts/evidence show? Notice this report that I found on fossil record way back in 1967 report. It said that:
“In the 1967 publication, The Fossil Record, . . . jointly sponsored by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association
of England . . . some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for
plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . .
Then said that:
“A conclusive generalization drawn from these charts is as follows: Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and
distinct history from all the other forms or kinds!!!
“Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc.,
all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the
supposed progenitor. . . .
“And proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, who are familiar with the facts of paleontology, admit existence of gaps between all higher
categories. They admit that this is an undeniable fact of the fossil record.”
(Note: I got a lot of hits when I googled the statements above but did not find the original 1967 publication)
But the question is - were these evolutionists, paleontologists, scientists wrong/ignorant on their conclusions way back then? What about now that we
are the 21st century? Surely this problem should have been resolved now. We should have “mountains of evidence” now (as some claimed) to show that
the organic evolution theory is a “fact”.
But is it?
Notice this statement - from the most highly recommended evolution websites (amongst evolutionist): TalkOrigins.org Notice the contributing factors of
why the fossil record is unreliable/inaccurate/incomplete.
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.
Compare these statements to Wiki:
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.
-----Signor-Lipps effect: en.wikipedia.org...
From another evolution website 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.
Notice this statement made by National Geographic in 2004. It compared the fossil record as being like:
“a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”
Very similar to what is stated at TalkOrigins.org’s website. Notice again:
The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors… 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.
Therefore, because of these “undeniable facts” evolutionists MUST and NEED to rely on another record imho – The Gene Record in order to prop up
the organic evolution theory.
In fact today the theory is now known or understood as:
"any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." --Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th
ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Used to be known as simpy a “biological change” that is “Organic evolution is descent with change.”
Note: Allele = DNA pairs/gene.
So there you have it, just a few sampling of the many facts out there regarding the inadequacy, inaccuracy and incompleteness of the fossil records
and why genetic evidence is now becoming if not the norm.
Now, up to those who wnat to continue believing a theory based on such evidence. But ask yourselves, will you trust your life on a weak theory based
on assumptions, interpretations, imaginations, “missing links” and most of all changing opinions/data? Or from someone who know where life came
from, why it came to be and where it’s heading? The Creator of Life himself (Gen 1:1, Ps 36:9)!
BTW, if you do a Google this topic (fossil record incomplete/missing link), you’ll be inundated with so much information - showing the
incompleteness of the fossil record. Ones I provided are prolly just 0.1% imho of the factual information that are out there.
On the other hand – the fossil record does indeed support something that a lot of people knew already including me, that is, it proves (special)
Creation without a doubt.
supplemental info dealing with fossil records (I think this website is neutral as far as origins are concern):