Are fossils presumed to show evolutionary transitions? Or does it show God's creation?

Question

Why does evolutionary literature use an artists renderings to show transitional fossils?
Why do they take one finger or a part of one or two bones, and then draw a picture to fit their hypotheses?

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Answer 1

Evolution is a house of cards built on a foundation of presupposition and conjecture. It will collapse on itself some day and like a house of cards the higher it gets the more certain its destruction.

Answer 2

Both. Fossils are the record of how God affects His creation through the tool of Evolution.



Which I don't think you understand fully. While Evolution is generally thought to be a very slow process, sometimes it isn't. A mutation that ends up being very successful can populate a species very quickly - sometimes. And, fossils only form under certain, specific situations. Generally, and animal, or plant that dies, and is covered by sediments. So, a desert creature, on ones living in mountains, or rocks would leave few traces behind. So and animal 5 million years old that decides to go live by the sea can just "pop" into the fossil record, as fossils are much more easily formed in shallow water. Deep sea creatures will have fewer fossils in their record. So, the lack of a transitional form does not mean there wasn't one. And, with research, more and more of these transitional forms are found. E.g., the links between true dinosaurs, and birds - more and more evidence for this is being found all the time. Enough that the idea is pretty well accepted now.



The reconstruction of a form based on a few bones seems remarkable to the amateur. However, paleontologists can do amazing things. A construction project in my town uncovered some bodies. They had been executed, and buried in unmarked graves out side the then police fort, which is now part of downtown. The experts were able to identify the ages, sexes, and races of the bones, despite their being buried with lime. There were able to positively identify 3 of the 4, and of the 4th, which was only a partial set of bones, they narrowed it down to 1 of 2 people who had been executed there. All by analyzing the bones. I went to the talk where they explained their work - it was amazing. No reconstruction an entire human from a pig tooth, but, it is remarkable what they can do - but it takes a LOT of study to know how it all works!



You seem to be making assumptions based on your understanding of the evidence, which is quite incomplete, as you haven't had the years, and years of training and experience in this field. It would be like asking you to perform open heart surgery based on your ability to put a band-aid on a cut. You need a lot more knowledge to pronounce so strongly!

Answer 3

1. Many animals before trilobites had no skeleton like worms or a exoskeleton that is made out of decomposing material such as flesh.



2. There ancestors of the giant dragon fly or meganeura is the odonatoptera a group of ancient winged insects.



3. Ostracroderms armored jawless fish from the paleozoic

Answer 4

If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.

Evolutionists like to call it ‘evolutionary stasis’. But evolution is about change, and putting ‘evolutionary’ in front of ‘stasis’ does not explain stasis in terms of evolution. All organisms undergo mutations (accidental genetic changes). There is no mechanism that prevents mutations such that many organisms can remain the same for supposedly hundreds of millions of years.

In the evolutionary story, environmental change, or the development of new environmental niches, drives evolution as organisms adapt to new environments. So they argue that living fossils are the creatures whose environment did not change. However, in the evolutionary view Earth has sustained multiple global catastrophes (but not a global flood; the Bible speaks about that!) and multiple ice ages. How could there be any place on earth that has remained static, including no change in predators? And living fossils occur across the spectrum of life; and they are very common.



Combine the observations of stasis and the scarcity of transitional fossils (there should be millions of them) and you have to ask, “Where is the fossil evidence for evolution?”



Well-preserved fossils speak of rapid burial in water-borne sediment, consistent with the Bible’s account of the global Flood just 4,500 years ago. And stasis is right in line with the Creator having made creatures to reproduce “according to their kind”, just as Genesis says happened during Creation week, about 6,000 years ago. No millions of years. No evolution.

Answer 5

Yeah right....because everybody knows random fossils are the only evidence there is for Evolutionary science. We should, ya know.... like... totally abandon that wrong turn and go back to the mud man, spit and magic words model on account of how the theory of Evolution is just a theory....ya know. Like gravity. LMAO

Answer 6

Webster's Dictionary:



Evolution-the process of how life originated and gradually transformed into the complexity of life we find today without the need of a caring Creator.

Answer 7

Even if they found a full skeleton and put it together like they claim, how do they know the skin types, the face features and the feathers? There are 7 Billion humans on the earth and no 2 are alike, not even twins or quins or sextuplets. Gimme a break!

Answer 8

That's an interesting thought for me. I personally never thought that fossils proved evolution or disproved God at all. I learned about fossil records in school, but it didn't make sense in how that proves evolution? Also, how can they say that certain fossils are 6 million years old? How do you prove that?

Answer 9

The neat thing about understanding or having a clear definition of what God is: I have both views and know how to keep them separated and know how to bring them together. This is helpful when I want to know something as to what it pertains to and what is needed to explain it more clearly. None of it is not God's work but all of it can and does have two forms of expression. One in the most general of ways and the other in the most specific of ways. Learn to keep them each in their proper places and you should not have much trouble understanding either of them.

Answer 10

Why don't you read some science? You are just parroting stuff you read from people who hate science because it proves that their bible is wrong. Answers to everything you mention here are available.

Answer 11

Your question shows why you should look up SCIENCE sources before going straight to creation sites trying to discredit them.

Answer 12

You can learn about evolutionary biology from this site:

Answer 13

You are correct. There is not a single shred of evidence on earth to support the theory of evolution.

The reason so many foolish people cling to it is, that it allows them to do as they please without consequence. Or so they think.

Answer 14

Bilbo, I see you are still spouting your nonsense. You should stop getting your nonsense from lying creationist web sites and books.



You want transitional fossils, how about these?:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1081677.stm

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds_2.htm



And this series in particular.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html



Because they are found in a large number of strata, and the strata were laid down with the lowest being the oldest and the uppermost being the latest, the fossils must also be dated accordingly and the sequence of fossils within the strata also therefore follow the sequence oldest to youngest.



And please note that the sequences of strata were developed by CREATIONIST geologists long before Darwin came up with his theory, so they could not have been influenced by evolutionary theory.



The oldest strata are found to contain only very simple life forms, and as one progresses through the strata more advanced life forms appear in a specific order that conforms to evolutionary theory.



The fact is that evolutionary theory would be falsified if any of the 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including human, were found in the fossil strata where they should not be found (for example, in the same strata with dinosaur fossils). No such finds have been made. And no fossils of present-day birds have been found in strata of the dinosaur era. Apparent fossils of precursors of a few limited types of present-day bird species have been found in late Cretaceous strata, such as parrots and certain sea birds. But there are no trace of fossils of any of the remainder of the other 10,000 present-day species of birds. Moreover, going back further there are only earlier, more primitive types of bird fossils to be found.



If the creationist view is true, why do we not find one single elephant, horse, cow, tiger, kangaroo, wolf, bear, gorilla, deer, or HUMAN fossil, or anything like any other modern-type mammal in ANY geologic strata ANYWHERE in the world in strata in which dinosaur fossils are found? The only mammal fossils to be found in such strata are those of relatively small species that are unique for that time frame. And going back to earlier strata you do not even find dinosaur and mammal fossils, but rather only early reptiles and amphibians.



And where are the fossils of trout, cod, salmon, sharks, bass, etc., to be found in Cambrian strata? Fish do not appear until the late Cambrian, and they are only primitive types, not the teleost fish we are familiar with.



And the same could be said for any other appearance of a later species in geological strata that was formed before that species could have evolved. But, according to the creationist flood "model" all species should be found together in the same strata.



So the creationists totally ignore the stratigraphical context of the fossils. The fossils are found in numerous different types of strata, including non-alluvial, and the fossils have a distinct order in the complexity and types of fossils through the strata. If the biblical flood were true there would be a mix of fossils with no particular order.



Because all of the evidence is for evolution, the purveyors of creationism in their web sites and books resort to lies and deceit in their attempts to disprove evolution, and ignorant lay creationists and IDiots just lap up those lies and repeat them.





Added



And we have other creationists spouting nonsense and showing they don't know squat about evolution.



@jojojubi: "evolution is about change"



No, it isn't. It is about adaptation as a result of differential selection of mutations that weigh on the survivability of the organism. And species evolve to fit into a particular ecological niche, and that niche may remain even though the environment might change. If a species is well adapted to a particular niche, it is not going to evolve out of that niche just to satisfy your erroneous ideas about evolution, particularly if doing so will result in its not being adapted to leaving that niche.



Furthermore, even though a species may be a "living fossil" it invariably is not the same as its predecessors of millions of years ago. A creationist favorite is the coelacanth. Coelacanths originally consisted of a great many species that lived in a wide variety of marine environments for several hundred million years. Because some of those environments consisted of shallow areas that were susceptible to periodic sedimentation, coelacanths are frequently found as fossils. There are only two species of living coelacanths and these two species are not found in the fossil record.



As for your explanation of the fossil record, it is based on ignorance about its actual nature. See my explanation above.



How do YOU explain the ACTUAL distribution of types of animals in the fossil record and the fact that they are NOT all mixed together as they would be if the flood actually occurred.



And don't refer to the creationist explanation of animals running to the hills or differential layering according to weight. Those explanations are nothing but BS and have no basis in what is actually found.



Furthermore, the fact is that the biblical flood is a myth, and so is the Bible's description of the descendants of Noah.



The fact is that the peoples who were supposed to have all killed in the flood WEREN'T.



For example, the history of ancient Egypt is well known from their writings and archaeological findings.



"The history of Ancient Egypt spans the period from the early predynastic settlements of the northern Nile Valley to the Roman conquest in 30 BC. The Pharaonic Period is dated from around 3200 BC, when Lower and Upper Egypt became a unified state, until the country fell under Greek rule in 332 BC."



"Between 5500 and 3100 BC, during Egypt's Predynastic Period, small settlements flourished along the Nile, whose delta empties into the Mediterranean Sea. By 3300 BC, just before the first Egyptian dynasty, Egypt was divided into two kingdoms, known as Upper Egypt, Ta Shemau, to the south, and Lower Egypt, Ta Mehu, to the north.[7] The dividing line was drawn roughly in the area of modern Cairo."



"The Old Kingdom is most commonly regarded as spanning the period of time when Egypt was ruled by the Third Dynasty through to the Sixth Dynasty (2686 BC – 2134 BC). The royal capital of Egypt during the Old Kingdom was located at Memphis, where Djoser established his court. The Old Kingdom is perhaps best known, however, for the large number of pyramids, which were constructed at this time as pharaonic burial places. For this reason, the Old Kingdom is frequently referred to as "the Age of the Pyramids." The first notable pharaoh of the Old Kingdom was Djoser (2630–2611 BC) of the Third Dynasty, who ordered the construction of a pyramid (the Step Pyramid) in Memphis' necropolis, Saqqara."



"The Fifth Dynasty began with Userkhaf (starting c. 2495 BC) and was marked by the growing importance of the cult of sun god Ra."



"During the sixth dynasty (2345–2181 BC), the power of pharaohs gradually weakened in favor of powerful nomarchs (regional governors). These no longer belonged to the royal family and their charge became hereditary, thus creating local dynasties largely independent from the central authority of the pharaoh. Internal disorders set in during the incredibly long reign of Pepi II (2278–2184 BC) towards the end of the dynasty."



"By 2160 BC a new line of pharaohs (the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties) consolidated Lower Egypt from their capital in Herakleopolis Magna. A rival line (the Eleventh Dynasty) based at Thebes reunited Upper Egypt and a clash between the two rival dynasties was inevitable. Around 2055 BC the Theban forces defeated the Heracleopolitan Pharaohs, reunited the Two Lands. The reign of its first pharaoh, Mentuhotep II marks the beginning of the Middle Kingdom."



And it continues for long after that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Egypt



According to Answers in Genesis:



"Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348"



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood



So, why weren't the ancient Egyptians drowned in the mythical biblical flood and the pyramids filled with water and mud?



The ancient Israelites constructed their myths on the basis of their superstitions and the myths and stories of the peoples around them. They got the story of the flood from the mythical epic of Gilgamesh during their Captivity in Mesopotamia, and they modified it to fit their belief in their own god. They also interpreted the vague histories they heard of other peoples, such as the Egyptians, to make them fit into their creation myths to create the "history" of the world as they conceived it.



Of course, since they had no real knowledge of the long-past history of the peoples around them, the myths they constructed frequently conflict with reality.