Thanks!
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that basically saying that we lack fossils that demonstrate changes in one form to another? In other words, there is no (logical) "progression"?
With respect to all life that has previously existed fossilization is quite rare. What kind of changes do you expect to see? You mentioned the Coelacanth in a previous post. Perhaps that is a good example to demonstrate evolution, not of a species but an entire genera. Since this is extensive I'm an going to provide a link which demonstrates what I am saying. Look at all the different genera we know about the coelacanth progressive from the Devonian to the present. You will need to page down to the "Timeline of Genera" to see what I'm talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
What do we know today, as it relates to this question? The idea of the question seems to be, why the absence of abundant (evolutionist-termed) "transitional" fossils prior to the Cambrian period?
There are many precambrian fossils dating back 4 Ga (billion years). The thing is that the great diversity of phyla is not seen until the Cambrian and just prior to it. There are two main reasons why the fossil record is more sparse prior to the Cambrian. First, geologic processes rework the earths surface destroying much of early earth's original crust. Second would be the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE). Before then, earths environment was very hostile. Prior to it all life forms were anaerobic.
Isn't evolution based on the idea that all life is the result of descent with modification which over millions of years has resulted in the variety of life we see today? Isn't the prediction of Darwin's evolution that there would be "innumerable" transitional fossils?
We have a gazillion more fossils than Darwin ever dreamed about along with numerous transitional fossils.
Which would it be, no need for fossils to verify the hypothesis or the need for fossils to verify the hypothesis? I'm not clear.
Fossils would be needed but they would not need to be transitional.
Doesn't "life forms" before Cambrian present a big step to the phyla you are referring to. Animals alone represent 32-39 phyla, not including invertebrate, and plant life. So, that is the question, why the relatively sudden appearance as compared to the pre-cambrian era? What is the estimated number of transitions need to go from these pre-cambrian forms to the cambrian forms? Multiply that times 32-39. Where are they?
Transitional fossils are not necessary. If evolution were false we would see fossils of all life forms that ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata.
"If evolution were false..." Your statement includes your assumption based on worldview, i.e. "we would not find...". However, there is no denying the fossils are there. There is no denying that there is some relative order associated with them. But that's all we can observe. Everything else is speculation or assumption based on worldview.
No my statement is based on my education and experience in the earth sciences. From what you said I gather you agree that the fossil record suggests evolution but doesn't verify it. Again, if evolution is false, then how did all of the fauna and flora get into the fossil record over geologic time without evolution. Just popped into existence at the right place and time? Hummmm?
For example, The creationist looks at the fossils and says a creature died (maybe one still around or one extinct). But the evolutionist looks at the fossils and says, wow, that one is changing into that one. How do you verify that? Science starts with falsifiable / verifiable questions.
By the changes seen. It takes many over a long period of time. One species does not change into another species by one or several generations.
Could the fossil arrangement also be the result of a worldwide cataclysmic event or other as of yet unknown form of geological layering? Must they be the result of millions of years of death and birth with mutations and slight modifications from one form to another that suggests we are all just here by accident and by purely naturalistic means (i.e. no need for God)? We only have "bones in the dirt".
Absolutely, there are 5 major and some 20 minor extinction events. As for just bones in the dirt, "the dirt" is where the information is contained. Geochemistry of that dirt reveals the past environments not only of the dirt itself, but the oceans and atmosphere as well.
Nevertheless, evolutionists see the fossils one way, and creationists see them another way. It is a never-ending discussion because it involves beliefs and worldviews.
I think the proper thing to do there is to express from different perspective. Rather than beliefs and worldviews, I would use the words beliefs and physical evidence.
RickG, I appreciate your civility in your responses. Thank you. I just want to discuss the science, not debate worldviews.
Same here. My main desire here is to discuss the science and show what is correct and not correct from a scientific point of view. I believe I mentioned earlier that the creation science community often says they use the same evidence as that of mainstream science but have a different interpretation. I think it is unfortunate that that is not the case. I have yet to see a different interpretation of the same evidence. Emphasis is on "same evidence".[/quote]
Upvote
0