Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

[mark kennedy]

Deep time is only one aspect. I'm mainly talking mainly about the geologic record, i.e.; past life, environments and geologic processes.

Darwinism literally has all the time in the world, the problem is it's weak on the cause. I like fossils to but all I see when I see a radiometric date is old dirt, it tells me nothing about how things actually evolve.

I didn't say apes, I said Chimpanzees. To date their entire fossil record is represented by three maybe four teeth.

Chimpanzees are apes as well as humans.

a type of animal (such as a chimpanzee or gorilla) that is closely related to monkeys and humans and that is covered in hair and has no tail or a very short tail

: a large and stupid or rude person (ape)​

Humans are sometimes classified as African Great Apes but the word 'ape' has always been used in counter distinction to humans.

 

[RickG]

Darwinism literally has all the time in the world, the problem is it's weak on the cause. I like fossils to but all I see when I see a radiometric date is old dirt, it tells me nothing about how things actually evolve.

Consider looking at the geologic column. The geologic column is divided into many divisions which define specific past events and environments. For example, we are presently living in the Holocene Epoch of the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era of the Phanerozoic Eon. How does one explain the distribution of fossils throughout the geologic column without evolution? If evolution were false, we would see fossils of all forms of life, both fauna and flora distributed throughout the geologic column. The fact is we don't. We see them distributed as evolution demonstrates. There are no Devonian rabbits, or Upper Cenomanian dinosaurs, or Devonian bears.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwinism literally has all the time in the world, the problem is it's weak on the cause. I like fossils to but all I see when I see a radiometric date is old dirt, it tells me nothing about how things actually evolve.

That would require you to understand mutations, understand molecular biology, understand embryonic development, and understand population genetics.

Humans are sometimes classified as African Great Apes but the word 'ape' has always been used in counter distinction to humans.

Ape is not a real scientific term to begin with, and the "ape" group is often paraphyletic. The monophyletic group is Hominidae which includes humans, gorillas, chimps, and orangutans. More importantly, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans, so if you include chimps and gorillas in a group you must also include humans in that group.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say apes, I said Chimpanzees. To date their entire fossil record is represented by three maybe four teeth.

First chimp fossil unearthed

That's because every time a chimpanzee skull in unearthed in Africa it's automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecines are not chimps. Earlier Homo species are not chimps.

 

[Loudmouth]

So your saying that mutations are the source for every adaptation in creation? Almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes in the human genome have at least one indel per lineage as compared to Chimpanzee. The problem is that when this happens in nature it usually results in a frameshift.

That is completely false.

"About 5% of the proteins show in-frame indels, but these tend to be small (median = 1 codon) and to occur in regions of repeated sequence."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

You must be reading too much Talk Origins because what I'm reading tells a different story.

We are reading peer reviewed scientific papers.

You assume it, it's not the same as quantitative data.

It isn't assumed. We observe mutations and we observe selection of mutations.

Mendel's experiments yielded two laws of inheritance that became the foundation for Genetics. Dominant and recessive traits account for a lot of variation while mutations have anecdotal evidence at best.

Can you please show us the DNA sequences that Mendel looked at?