How do OEC explain the fossil record?

[Scholar in training]

Hello, I used to have trouble understanding OEC because it didn't make sense to me. Why rely on an old earth if the fossil record still indicated otherwise? Thus, I combined Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism into one group... at least, in respect to the fossil record.

But now I want to learn about the OEC position on this issue. Are there any significant arguments that cast doubt upon the current evolutionistic interpretation of the fossil record? Either in progression of organisms or in various dating methods?

 

[fyodoros]

Why rely on an old earth if the fossil record still indicated otherwise?

are you saying the fossil record indicates a young earth? how so?

 

[Scholar in training]

are you saying the fossil record indicates a young earth? how so?

I meant the old earth that OEC believe in; one that has existed for 6,000-some years, as opposed to the old earth TE believe in; one that has been here for billions of years. As far as I've learned, the fossil record indicates the old earth of the progressive creationists. So, what I'm wondering is whether the fossil record can be interpreted in any other fashion, and if so, why.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I meant the old earth that OEC believe in; one that has existed for 6,000-some years, as opposed to the old earth TE believe in; one that has been here for billions of years. As far as I've learned, the fossil record indicates the old earth of the progressive creationists. So, what I'm wondering is whether the fossil record can be interpreted in any other fashion, and if so, why.

you appear to be confused.
most Old Earth Creationists understand the age of the earth and of the universe to be the usual scientific dating. only YECist dispute dating technics.

the real difference between the right most TE and the left most OEC is the special creation of Adam being discontinuous with the rest of living creatures(OEC) or common descent(TE)

 

[Sinai]

I meant the old earth that OEC believe in; one that has existed for 6,000-some years, as opposed to the old earth TE believe in; one that has been here for billions of years. As far as I've learned, the fossil record indicates the old earth of the progressive creationists. So, what I'm wondering is whether the fossil record can be interpreted in any other fashion, and if so, why.

The reason OECs are referred to as being old earth creationists is because they tend to agree with mainstream scientists that our planet is approximately 4.55 billion years old, and that the universe is 11-20 billion years old. It's the young earth creationists that think the universe is only about 6,000 Earth-years old.

 

[shernren]

Are you confused, or is it just me being confused about you?

I think you'll have to explain just what you mean. To me, a YEC is one who believes in a 6000-year-old universe and earth; an OEC can range anywhere from old-universe, young-earth
old universe, "middle-aged-earth" (i.e. that Earth was wiped out by a Pre-Adamic Flood and reconstructed 6000 years ago) and
old-universe, old-earth;
and with varying theories like Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory.

And what do you think the fossil record indicates?

 

[Blue2836]

I believe that if you truly view the fossil record with an objective eye, you'll see that there is not one absolutely transitional fossil in a record of over one billion specimens. Again, I am saying that there is not one fossil that can only be explained as a transition between two different species. There are plenty of creative theories about how the different leaps are made, as well as plenty of different interpretations of similarities that different species share; but there are no fossils that actually prove that any evolution ever took place. That being said, how exactly does the fossil record indicate an old earth? Or are you talking about carbon dating?

 

[notto]

I believe that if you truly view the fossil record with an objective eye, you'll see that there is not one absolutely transitional fossil in a record of over one billion specimens. Again, I am saying that there is not one fossil that can only be explained as a transition between two different species. There are plenty of creative theories about how the different leaps are made, as well as plenty of different interpretations of similarities that different species share; but there are no fossils that actually prove that any evolution ever took place. That being said, how exactly does the fossil record indicate an old earth? Or are you talking about carbon dating?

Can you define what you would accept as a transitional fossil? What are its characteristics? I'm guessing that you are not aware of what we have found in the fossil record or what you are expecting isn't something that would be expected if evolutionary theory is true.

We would never expect to find a fossil of a transitional directly between species because species variation can be small and would take place in a small amount of time when related to the entire record.

What we do find is transitional fossils that fit nicely between major families and such and they just happen to appear in the timeframe that evolutionary theory would predict.

Transitional fossils don't 'prove' that evolution happened, but they are a piece of evidence that shows us that evolution did happen. Evolutionary theory explains them well and better than other hypothesis.

(just an FYI - Carbon dating isn't useful in dating fossils or rocks because it can only be used to date things that were alive over the last 100,000 years (as an extreme upper scale) and we need some organic material to do the dating.

 

[Blue2836]

Can you define what you would accept as a transitional fossil? What are its characteristics? I'm guessing that you are not aware of what we have found in the fossil record or what you are expecting isn't something that would be expected if evolutionary theory is true.

I am aware that there are creatures that scientists believe demonstrate the evolutionary process such as trilobites. However, the point is that if every creature around today is the result of hundreds of millions of years of slight variation, then there should be an abundance of transitional fossils demonstrating the evolutionary path beyond any doubt. As it stands, the interpretation of today's claimed transitional fossils is debateable.

We would never expect to find a fossil of a transitional directly between species because species variation can be small and would take place in a small amount of time when related to the entire record.

That's just not true. There would be millions of steps between a long-necked giraffe and a short necked one taking hundreds of millions of years. There should be plenty of fossils showing these slow and subtle mutations.

Transitional fossils don't 'prove' that evolution happened, but they are a piece of evidence that shows us that evolution did happen. Evolutionary theory explains them well and better than other hypothesis.

Scientists have lined up foxes, rabbits, dogs, and horses together in text books in order to show the evolutionary process. Within the context of trying to prove the unprovable, anything can show that evolution happened as long as you are willing to disregard the tremendous shortcomings.

 

[notto]

That's just not true. There would be millions of steps between a long-necked giraffe and a short necked one taking hundreds of millions of years. There should be plenty of fossils showing these slow and subtle mutations.

Scientists have lined up foxes, rabbits, dogs, and horses together in text books in order to show the evolutionary process. Within the context of trying to prove the unprovable, anything can show that evolution happened as long as you are willing to disregard the tremendous shortcomings.

Can you tell us what you would expect as characteristics of transitional fossils? You comment on giraffes yet you discredit horses. We have a great set of transitional fossils that show the evolution of horses. Why are then not transitional fossils? They show (in chronological order) morphological changes from animals in the past to the present. They show this rather clearly.

You still haven't indicated what you consider to be a characteristic of a transitional fossil. You also assert that we should be able to find many, but give no reason why. Fossilization is a rare event and finding them is even rarer. You can't go out digging and easily find bones of animals that have become extinct even recently. We would not expect to be able to go out and find any particular specimin from any particular time and surely not a series of fossils from a particular area that shows the entire evolutinary sequence. It would seem like you are asking for something that you really can't define and that we would never expect to be able to find.

 

[shernren]

You're never going to get anything out of him notto ... it's a case of AiG - assumptions in generalities. Just give him a good dose of TalkOrigins and if that doesn't sort him out nothing will.

 

[Blue2836]

Can you tell us what you would expect as characteristics of transitional fossils? You comment on giraffes yet you discredit horses. We have a great set of transitional fossils that show the evolution of horses. Why are then not transitional fossils? They show (in chronological order) morphological changes from animals in the past to the present. They show this rather clearly.

I would expect that an absolutely ideal example of a transitional fossil would be one that is unquestionably the same species as a currently living one, with very slight mutations undoubtedly detailing the steps from its previous species to the species it is now. In other words, it would require more than just variation within a species which can be creatively described in any direction that the person detailing it wants to take it. It would require the ability to truly demonstrate the path that the whale, for example, took to become a land walking creature. It should not be examples of creatures that may or may not be merely examples of variation within different species. There must have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of these steps between species. If evolution really happened, these types of fossils should be abundant.

You still haven't indicated what you consider to be a characteristic of a transitional fossil. You also assert that we should be able to find many, but give no reason why. Fossilization is a rare event and finding them is even rarer. You can't go out digging and easily find bones of animals that have become extinct even recently. We would not expect to be able to go out and find any particular specimin from any particular time and surely not a series of fossils from a particular area that shows the entire evolutinary sequence. It would seem like you are asking for something that you really can't define and that we would never expect to be able to find.

I hope the above somewhat describes what I'm talking about. Now, I know what you're saying. Fossils are hard to come by. However, we do have over a billion fossil specimens and unquestionably transitional forms should be there somewhere.

 

[Blue2836]

You're never going to get anything out of him notto ... it's a case of AiG - assumptions in generalities. Just give him a good dose of TalkOrigins and if that doesn't sort him out nothing will.

Before you start congratulating yourselves give me a chance to come around and reply. I don't get to go online everyday. Also, I've come across the talkorigins crowd more than a few times and I am well aware of the fact that their arguments are pre-packaged for them. Hopefully, however, I'm not going to sit here replying to "copy and pastes."

 

[shernren]

Nope, I don't copy and paste too much. I do leave links. If you're interested enough in the argument to read them then we can have fun. so what do you think of TO's opinions on the matter?

 

[gluadys]

I would expect that an absolutely ideal example of a transitional fossil would be one that is unquestionably the same species as a currently living one, with very slight mutations undoubtedly detailing the steps from its previous species to the species it is now.

This is a little unclear. You are only going to look at fossils of currently living species which have retained some primitive characteristics from their ancestors? If the species is still living, why do you even need to look for fossils? e.g. we can look at living hoatzin chick and see the claws on their wings, similar to the claws on the fossil species Archeopteryx.

Also what if we simply don't have fossils of an immediately preceding species, but do have fossils of a presumably more distant ancestor. What would be the rational for ignoring that fossil?

In other words, it would require more than just variation within a species which can be creatively described in any direction that the person detailing it wants to take it.

This is also unclear when dealing with fossils. The standard definition of a species is based on the ability and willingness of members of a population to breed successfully. But morphology is no guide to mating habits. Some organisms will breed with others in spite of significant differences in form (e.g. several different breeds of dogs) so they are considered one species. Others will not breed with organisms outside their population group even though they appear to be very similar. Mate selection is often determined by something non-fossilable, such as bird song.

So how would we be able to tell, in the case of two rather similar fossils, whether they represent one species or two? variation within a species or evolution to another species?

It would require the ability to truly demonstrate the path that the whale, for example, took to become a land walking creature.

Haven't got that backward about idea erased from your mind yet, eh? Surely you mean the path that a land-walking creature took to become a whale.

Actually that pathway has been fairly well described. Have you checked out the species of fossils in the lineage of whale evolution yet?

It should not be examples of creatures that may or may not be merely examples of variation within different species.

Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "species". Are you comfortable with the standard biological definition based on whether or not two populations mate with each other?

There must have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of these steps between species. If evolution really happened, these types of fossils should be abundant.

Why? Isn't generation turnover more pertinent? In the laboratory scientists can stimulate the evolution of new species of insects in just a few years. Some plants develop new species in just one generation. Lengthy time-lines are only necessary for long-lived species.

And what does one consider "abundant"? There are numerous fossil species of horses, elephants and some other mammals. There are, from a scientific perspecitive a more than adequate number of fossils in the human lineage since it split with the chimpanzee lineage. But there are abysmally few fossils in other primate lineages. There are lots and lots and lots of finely graded lineages of shelled invertebrates, but far fewer fossils of insects.

I hope the above somewhat describes what I'm talking about. Now, I know what you're saying. Fossils are hard to come by. However, we do have over a billion fossil specimens and unquestionably transitional forms should be there somewhere.

Since, strictly speaking, all fossils are transitional forms, (except the last species in a lineage which is extinct), sure the transitional forms are there. But some are more recognizably transitional than others.

What would really help me get a hold on your thinking is to look at specific fossils most scientists consider to be transitional and explain exactly why you reject their transitional status.

For example Stephen J. Gould called Archeopteryx "as pretty a transitional fossil as you could ever hope to see." On what basis do you disagree with him?

 

[Smidlee]

I would expect that an absolutely ideal example of a transitional fossil would be one that is unquestionably the same species as a currently living one, with very slight mutations undoubtedly detailing the steps from its previous species to the species it is now. In other words, it would require more than just variation within a species which can be creatively described in any direction that the person detailing it wants to take it. It would require the ability to truly demonstrate the path that the whale, for example, took to become a land walking creature. It should not be examples of creatures that may or may not be merely examples of variation within different species. There must have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of these steps between species. If evolution really happened, these types of fossils should be abundant.

there is no specific criteria for transitional fossil. A few year ago I remember an article claiming Eosimias was a transitional fossil with only two "grain size" bones was found. Sometime just a teeth is another for many scientist. All transitional fossils is based on the appearance of the fossil and prejudices of scientists. fossils are often put together with recovering bones that are spread out of a long distance.
Lucy is the most complete of the transitional fossils of human yet there's not any way of showing Lucy is an ancestor of human as some scientist believe Lucy is a dead-end. The amazing thing they have found human foot prints older than Lucy so it possible humans was walking around while Lucy was still swinging in the trees. also because of prejudices scientist claim Neanderthals is a dead-end also since we can't have them being our ancestor with 30% bigger brains. Bigger brains is one of the thing evolutionists uses to determine a what is a human transitional fossil so Neanderthals are out since it screws up their bigger brains equals more intelligent idea.
Often appearances can be very misleading as with the bat. The bat itself looks like a transitional fossil between mammals and birds. The rat evolve to a bat then bat evolves to birds. (or maybe bird evolves to bat to rat.) But this goes againest scientist prejudices since they believe both mammals and birds evolved from reptiles. The reason for this prejudice is because of the Cambrian explosion yet this is works just as much (if not more) againest evolution as for it. ID has point out the Cambrian explosion works againest TOE since we now know this would required unreal large amount of mutations in just a short time.

 

[gluadys]

Smidlee, you are only betraying ignorance when you write a post like this.

there is no specific criteria for transitional fossil.

Yes there are. The paleontologist looks for a mixture of characteristics that transcends a species, or genus, or some other taxonomic group. A transitional should have some characters of the ancestral group it came from, some of the group it is transitioning to, and some intermediate between the two groups. Furthermore, it should not have characters which are inappropriate to the lineage. Finally, it should be found in a stratographic position that matches its transitional state i.e. younger than the ancestral group, older than the descendant group.

A few year ago I remember an article claiming Eosimias was a transitional fossil with only two "grain size" bones was found. Sometime just a teeth is another for many scientist. All transitional fossils is based on the appearance of the fossil and prejudices of scientists. fossils are often put together with recovering bones that are spread out of a long distance.

One has to go by appearances when there is no DNA to recover. But close, detailed study of appearances can tell a lot about a creature. It was a creationist, (Baron Georges de Cuvier) and a brilliant anatomist, who boasted that he could reconstruct an animal's whole anatomy from a single tooth. That may be overstating it a bit, but you really can tell a great deal about an animal from very few skeletal remains. (And even if it is overstating the case for most paleontologists, I wouldn't be surprised if Cuvier could do exactly what he said. He was really good at anatomy.)

Lucy is the most complete of the transitional fossils of human yet there's not any way of showing Lucy is an ancestor of human as some scientist believe Lucy is a dead-end.

Because we only have bones and no DNA, it is never possible to tell if a fossil is a direct ancestor of any modern group. That is why evidence of direct ancestry is not included as a criterion of a transitional fossil. What is required are morphological features consistent with ancestry. Whether the particular fossil IS the ancestor or simply very much LIKE the ancestor doesn't matter. (That is why I mentioned ancestral and descendent "groups" above.) We can't pinpoint specific ancestors or descendants. What we can pinpoint are the characters of the fossils in relationship to probable living descendants and to earlier fossils. Fossils are rare enough without demanding evidence that will never be available.

The amazing thing they have found human foot prints older than Lucy so it possible humans was walking around while Lucy was still swinging in the trees. also because of prejudices scientist claim Neanderthals is a dead-end also since we can't have them being our ancestor with 30% bigger brains. Bigger brains is one of the thing evolutionists uses to determine a what is a human transitional fossil so Neanderthals are out since it screws up their bigger brains equals more intelligent idea.

Neanderthals had bigger brains than us because they had bigger bodies than us. Whales, elephants and other animals larger than us also have bigger brains. Many large dinosaurs had bigger brains than us.

What we have is a bigger brain relative to body mass. When you look at the ratio of brain mass to body mass, you find that all these large animals have a smaller brain/body ratio than we do. That includes the Neanderthals.

Often appearances can be very misleading as with the bat. The bat itself looks like a transitional fossil between mammals and birds.

The bat, even as a skeleton, looks nothing at all like a transitional between mammals and birds. Yes it has wings, but its wing structure is entirely different. It has nothing resembling even an incipient beak. Its hip bones, teeth, and skull are all very different from birds. No knowledgeable anatomist would ever mistake it for a descendant or ancestor of birds.

The rat evolve to a bat then bat evolves to birds. (or maybe bird evolves to bat to rat.) But this goes againest scientist prejudices since they believe both mammals and birds evolved from reptiles.

What you are calling prejudices are actually conclusions based on centuries of study of the vertebrate skeleton. Much of it done by creationists. No one began with a pre-conceived idea of which animals were related to which. They figured it out bit by bit by studying living animals and fossil remnants. Much of the original classification was completed before Darwin was born.

The reason for this prejudice is because of the Cambrian explosion yet this is works just as much (if not more) againest evolution as for it. ID has point out the Cambrian explosion works againest TOE since we now know this would required unreal large amount of mutations in just a short time.

I would sure like to see how they figure out how many mutations are needed and why the time frame is too short. ID math leaves much to be desired because it is generally based on incorrect assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[shernren]

I would agree that the Cambrian explosion seems to put a dent in common descent. Having said that I think it does no damage whatsoever to natural selection, whether "macro" or "micro".

 

[Sojourner<><]

Hello, I used to have trouble understanding OEC because it didn't make sense to me. Why rely on an old earth if the fossil record still indicated otherwise? Thus, I combined Old Earth Creationism and Young Earth Creationism into one group... at least, in respect to the fossil record.

But now I want to learn about the OEC position on this issue. Are there any significant arguments that cast doubt upon the current evolutionistic interpretation of the fossil record? Either in progression of organisms or in various dating methods?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you're asking for the OEC viewpoint that challenges the fossil records. As far as I know, the OEC view is based on the fossil record.

However, the YEC viewpoint is that the fossil record was formed in the Biblical account of the Flood. Have you seen any pictures of the aftermath of the tsunamis that wrecked those islands in Asia last year? There was sediment left everywhere from the sheer force of the surging water coming up onto the shores. Now just picture something like this multiplied thousands of times over that engulfed the entire world.

If you noticed, the fossil record is found in the layers, or strata, of the geological column. In the Old Earth viewpoint, each layer is assumed to have been formed over vast amounts of time by some series of small catastrophic events like local floods or volcanic eruptions. These small catastrophies are needed to fossilize the animals since an animal needs to be buried relatively quickly in sediment since it would otherwise decay without leaving a trace. Now, if we're thinking that this did occur over vast amounts of time, the process would theoretically capture snapshots of the evolution of life on earth as we know it.

However, if we take into account the destructive force involved in the Flood as presented in Genesis, it would explain that the geological strata were formed all at once. Have you ever seen one of those framed glass plates filled with water and sand? If you turn it over and let the sand settle down, it has the effect of forming stripes of different colors since sand of different densities will settle in place at different times. This kind of hydrolic separation is what YEC'ists think of as the cause of the strata. Also, this could be applied to the animals that were caught in the flood. At the bottom of the fossil record, you'll find smaller animals that could be assumed to be lower on the evolutionary scale, but could also be assumed to be on the bottom because smaller animals would have probably been trapped by sediment more easily in the rushing waters than would the larger animals.

The book of Genesis can be used to explain for limits in variability in speciation, missing links, oil deposits and the extinction of prehistoric species like the dinosaurs. To me it makes alot more sense than evolutionary theory, which suggests that natural selection is a loophole in the second law of thermodynamics.

I hope that helps

 

[shernren]

Natural selection is a loophole in the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Hmm, I'm guessing your computer is too, by whatever criteria you're using.

And as for hydraulic sorting it's just a matter of time before Gluadys' lilies and ferns pop up.