Evolution without the fossil record

[Jerry Smith]

ROFL! (but I'm still a dog-person)...

(I guess you would expect ROFL behaviour from a dog-person though)

 

[Jerry Smith]

Has there been any research on how well the genetic differences matches the time the continents drifted apart?

I found it:
http://www.info.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=156

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by choccy:
What if we for some reason didn't have a fossil record? Would the other lines of evidence really be that conclusive?

It is probably open to debate as to how much the fossil record supports the overall theory of evolution. Although it is generally regarded as supporting the theory with regard to the overall development of life on our planet, the fossil record also shows that there were numerous instances where new forms of life appear relatively suddenly and without the long gradual history of gradual changes that would be required to conform to the theory's reliance upon chance or random mutations, or with the theory's prediction that all life can be traced back to a common ancestor. Thus, with regard to at least that portion of the theory, it could probably be argued that the evidence might be more conclusive if there were no fossil record.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Although it is generally regarded as supporting the theory with regard to the overall development of life on our planet, the fossil record also shows that there were numerous instances where new forms of life appear relatively suddenly and without the long gradual history of gradual changes that would be required to conform to the theory's reliance upon chance or random mutations, or with the theory's prediction that all life can be traced back to a common ancestor. Thus, with regard to at least that portion of the theory, it could probably be argued that the evidence might be more conclusive if there were no fossil record.

One cannot presume from the geologically "sudden" appearance of an organism in the fossil record that it evolved quickly. This line of reasoning fails on that account.

The molecular and anatomical evidence agree to a very high degree of precision with the fossil evidence. There is "room" to interpret punctuated equilibrium in some lineages (but obviously not all). Even that doesn't call into question the basic mechanisms that have been identified.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith:


One cannot presume from the geologically "sudden" appearance of an organism in the fossil record that it evolved quickly. This line of reasoning fails on that account.

The fossil record indicates that the first three billion years or so of life on our planet apparently consisted of one celled animals or groups of cells clustered into structureless communities or other simple organisms. None of the structures we typically associate with complex animals--mouths, eyes, limbs or appendages, for example--are apparent.

Even though there had been no hint in the underlying older fossils, a virtual explosion of complex animal fossils (often referred to as the Cambrian explosion of animal life) appeared during the approximately five million-year transition from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian life as the basic anatomy of virtually every animal alive today developed--and with each of the animals in this era making its first appearance in the fossil record fully developed. Mathematicians have shown that it is statistically very improbable that any of the major structures (such as eyes) could develop through random mutation in such a relatively short period of time. For all of them to have so developed is virtually impossible. Thus, as I noted earlier, with regard to at least that portion of the theory, it could probably be argued that the evidence might be more conclusive if there were no fossil record.

 

[Jerry Smith]

This depends on a misunderstanding of the nature of the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil records. For a better understanding, please see here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html

and

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Miller2.html