Fossil record disproves Evolution?
The fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which is used to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, they are guilty of circular reasoning if they then say the fossil record supports this theory. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. there remains a conspicuous lack of credible accounting for empirically viable changes beyond that of bones and teeth. Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully “transitioned” from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the “original” or the “descendant” system during the alleged transition.
I fail to see how gaps in the fossil record disproves evolution, please explain.?
"Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry." Does that suggest then, that unless a piece of evidence can be undeniably and unquestionably defined, that is isn't evidence? Evolutionists might have different opinions of how fast human evolution progressed, which changes happened when, and which fossils belong to which species, but that does not mean that they are not evidence of human-ape ancestry. A lot of the scientific theories that are now accepted as fact were once 'controversial'; that's how science works. There's a problem, there's some hypotheses, the hypotheses get tested/more evidence shows up, hopefully one comes out the winner. "But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us." Part of the problem with this is that people will insist that a 'partially-evolved' animal should look like they say. But anyway, there is evidence for 'missing links' - archeopteryx is a classic example, but I could name many others. Evolution is fluid - there's not 'a' and 'b' and an intermediate. The groups you name - birds, lizards, fish - are all nothing but taxonomic groups we have given to them. It doesn't mean there were lizards, then suddenly there were birds, with some definitive boundary where one became the other. "Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed." That's not true at all. Species boundaries are being redefined all the time. If you think every species is 'complete and fully formed', care to give a definition of how to distinguish two species? There are different species that can interbreed, and cryptic species that look identical but don't interbreed and are genetically very different. There are new strains and traits appearing all the time.
Darwin’s theory traces back the ancestry of man and every other complex species of life to a single celled organism, and it doesn’t account for its origins, know anything about its nature, or explain why it would evolve in the first place. The organism(s) that started it all would seem to no longer exist, but what happened to it all? Did it mutate into various forms of life and slowly spread around the planet? Then dinosaurs were born and destroyed by time, and life began all over again mutating from an unknown source to produce the current age of man with an entirely new product of time and evolution? If life can keep mutating into new forms randomly selected, where is the original form that it starts with? It must be here somewhere. Some indestructible living force capable of mutating into every form of life in existence again and again. every time all forms of life become extinct, new forms of life mutate to replace it randomly selected by chance and time. The source of life is nowhere to be seen, but if an ice age occurs, it will rebuild life, and possibly civilization.
Is there a consensus on the fossil record not being enough to deduce evolution?I suppose the better question would be: Why do some individuals not accept the fossil record as a sufficient body of evidence to accept evolution as the likely deduction?The problem with most people is when they hear the term “the fossil record” they imagine a small-ish collection of fossilised bones and bone fragments that perhaps would occupy a small exhibit within a museum or gallery. They imagine a bunch of dinosaur bones and some humanoid sculls.But what we are actually talking about is warehouses. Fossils have been collected for nearly 200 years. And there are fossils of thousands of animal and plant species. But it’s not just about the fossils that are collected.With every dig there is a a lot of other data that gets collected. Geological data (soil composition, and sometimes core samples), climate data, and other geographical data regarding the topology, the rivers and aquifers. And also biological data regarding micro-flora, vegetation cycles, animal migration patterns, etc. This way, paleontologists can determine weather it is something that actually died and fossilised there or it’s a bone that some animal picked up somewhere else and carried it to this place.And here’s how much the current fossil record can inform paleontologists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists: Based on all that data, they can form a picture about what kind of fossil they can find in a specific region. They can extrapolate that a 2,000 km north-west from their most recent find, they should find sculls and other hominid bones with a specific set of variation.And that’s how most of the fossils are found these days. Using data which is based on the fossil record. Sure every now and then there is an accidental find, but the majority of paid digs are funded based on correlated data indicating that fossils of a new species of some ancient animal will be found in a specific area.So you see, together with “proving” the age of the planet, the climate on Earth hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, and the diets of long extinct species, the core thing it does prove is the process of evolution of plant and animal life.
How does evolution disprove God?
Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools. Consider this Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo Darwin's Deadly Legacy (2 of 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMWGgY6wT30&feature=related Darwin's Deadly Legacy (3 of 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFKbgIr6ngE&feature=related Darwin's Deadly Legacy (4 of 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haDsxjsGP0A&feature=related Darwin's Deadly Legacy (5 of 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmlLjs2rHpI&feature=related Darwin's Deadly Legacy (6 of 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCqRcMXVC5o&feature=related Darwin's Deadly Legacy (7 of 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWdA6-m4ZxQ&feature=related ❝HEROES❞ OF ATHEISM ∅ DARWIN TO HITLER http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgeVGmtMQRc Biology Eliminates Evolution http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data1.html
Fossil record and evolution..?
I recently took a trip to the Museum of Natural History. Many creationists claim that the fossil record hopelessly fails to show any signs that evolution has taken place. I think anyone who makes this claim needs to take a trip to this museum. They have literally hundreds of thousands of fossils. They had an entire warehouse of just nothing but tetrapods, and they put the fossils in order by age and it was very clear by looking at the fossils that they evolved over time. Tetrapods were not the only example they had however. They had like 14 or 15 warehouses of nothing but fossils and countless examples of intermediate forms that creationists claim are "missing links." My friend jokingly said to me "I guess we don't have any missing links." I think to visit this museum, and to come up with any other conclusion other than evolution is no longer skepticism, but rather denial bordering on stupidity.
Are evolution disproved by fossils?
You should research the fossils we have and the process of fossilization. You'll see that many species of dinosaurs that lived for hundreds of thousands of years have left nothing behind but a single bone (if that). Fossilization is rare for land animals (over 90% of the fossils we have are from sea animals). Edit: Ninety-five percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils. Ninety-five percent of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. *The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates*, mostly fish. *Ninety-five percent of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. * http://www.wasdarwinright.com/fossils.htm Given the rareness of land vertebrate leaving fossils it's really no wonder that there are gaps in the fossil record.
Does the Cambrian explosion disprove evolution?
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/yPJFg No and yes at the same time. That is one of the luxuries of cherry-picking evidence! Not only can you pick the cherries, but you can carefully peel off the cherry-skin, toss away the stem, extract and discard the pit (the seed of the idea), and meticulously pare down the remains until it barely resembles a cherry ... and still call it "evidence." So creationists accept the "explosion" part (without acknowledging what that means in geological timescales), and use the name "Cambrian" without acknowledging what that means (e.g. that the acceptance of something called the "Cambrian" makes the *Pre-Cambrian* relevant). Specifically, the creationist can toss around names like "Cambrian", which are names of *LAYERS* in the strata of the geological column ... while simultaneously denying the existence of any geological column at all! No awareness whatsoever that we give these layers *NAMES* because they show discontinuities in the types of *fossils* they contain ... some types of fossils disappearing (signalling mass extinction) while others are appearing (mass radiation) ... over and over and over and over. So creationism would rewrite your definition as "the Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian