What do the fossils say?

[mindlight]

OK I need to take this one head on. Are there reasonable grounds to suspect that the current scientific consensus on fossils is mistaken and they cannot be used to prove evolution.

1) FOSSILS ARE FREAKS - Lack of total evidence

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

2) MISSING LINKS - Lack of unambiguous intermediate stages

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

3) IMPROBABILITY OF THE PROCESS-

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

4) MISHANDLED EVIDENCE
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199

5) FOSSIL FORMATION BETTER EXPLAINED BY FLOOD
Way fossils are formed e.g by water and embedding in sediment. Of the trillions of creatures lives lived only a small sample got fossilised. The best explanation for these is flood geology.

 

[shernren]

Yes, yes, people were far wiser and smarter in the 1980s. Just a few years before, one of the greatest sages in the computer industry uttered these words:

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”

— Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.

Using quotations a quarter of a century outdated by now to argue against the validity of evolution is kind of like quoting Ken Olson to tell me my laptop does not exist.

 

[philadiddle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=channel_page

 

[philadiddle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

 

[Mallon]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[mark kennedy]

OK I need to take this one head on. Are there reasonable grounds to suspect that the current scientific consensus on fossils is mistaken and they cannot be used to prove evolution.

The problem is that evolutionists always use the evidence to support their a priori assumption of common ancestry. Every time an ape skull is uncovered in Africa or Asia they are immediately declared on of our ancestors. Ask yourself this, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record.

 

[Mallon]

Do you predict we will never find an ancestral chimp fossil, mark?

 

[MiserableSinner]

The fossils say punctuated equilibrium, thus confirming the evolutionary prediction.

 

[The Barbarian]

1) FOSSILS ARE FREAKS - Lack of total evidence

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ...

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

Here's a list of some of the more significant ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Mighty big billiard, table, um? Sound to me like John is stuffed with prunes.
Or maybe not. Thirty years ago, we only had a fraction of the ones found now. Quote-mining from outdated stuff is a risky practice.

MISSING LINKS - Lack of unambiguous intermediate stages

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127 [/QUOTE]

Another bad practice is editing material to change the meaning. This one was a particularly bad one, and Gould responded:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists ? whether through design or stupidity, I do not know ? as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. "

Surprised? I imagine you are. Likely, you never knew that the quote had been carefully snipped out of context.

) IMPROBABILITY OF THE PROCESS-

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

Hoyle supposed that evolutionary theory says it was entirely random, like a tornado in a junkyard. He also supposed that insects were smarter than people. As you should know, Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't random.

MISHANDLED EVIDENCE
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.

In fact, people make mistakes. But each of these were corrected by evolutionists, using evolutionary theory. If a lab flubs a blood test, no one is stupid enough to say blood testing is useless.

FOSSIL FORMATION BETTER EXPLAINED BY FLOOD
Way fossils are formed e.g by water and embedding in sediment. Of the trillions of creatures lives lived only a small sample got fossilised. The best explanation for these is flood geology.

Sounds interesting. Tell us about the sorting of fossils in the "flood geology."

 

[mindlight]

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

Here's a list of some of the more significant ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

A list of old bone fragments many of which do not look remotely human and the links between these and homosapien man being sadly lacking. These could be anything from deformed mutant humans to entirely different species which have simply died out. Not very convincing so far.

Mighty big billiard, table, um? Sound to me like John is stuffed with prunes.
Or maybe not. Thirty years ago, we only had a fraction of the ones found now. Quote-mining from outdated stuff is a risky practice.

Or the collection of red herrings has simply grown larger.

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

Another bad practice is editing material to change the meaning. This one was a particularly bad one, and Gould responded:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists ? whether through design or stupidity, I do not know ? as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. "

Surprised? I imagine you are. Likely, you never knew that the quote had been carefully snipped out of context.

Well its hardly surprising that creationists misquote him. What he is saying is that there is no evidence of gradual evolution within a species and that the process actually occurs by large scale leaps for which there is no evidence in the fossils. What we have is before the leap and after the leap fossils. And this is meant to prove the evolutionary theory!

) IMPROBABILITY OF THE PROCESS-

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

Hoyle supposed that evolutionary theory says it was entirely random, like a tornado in a junkyard. He also supposed that insects were smarter than people. As you should know, Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't random.

I hear this counter quite a lot. I understand what you are saying that in a sense as the process develops the forces that move it become less and less the products of chance and more the logic of the organisms themselves.
.
However Hoyle is right that in so far as the whole process is not considered as having been driven by an intelligent designer from start to finish it is not therefore a purposeful one but rather a randomn one. How the initial spark of life arose remains an apparently random and merely natural occurrence. Also the form that the life it initiated tookis also apparently randomn. The probability of life arising in this way is too small to consider plausible.

In fact, people make mistakes. But each of these were corrected by evolutionists, using evolutionary theory. If a lab flubs a blood test, no one is stupid enough to say blood testing is useless.

So at least now the error is consistent.

Sounds interesting. Tell us about the sorting of fossils in the "flood geology."

I don't need to for what I am trying to argue. I'd be happy to accept that it is observably in a certain order and that fossils generally appear in one layer rather than another. We probably will not disagree on what can actually be observed. The point is to interpret the meaning of what is seen.

 

[mindlight]

The problem is that evolutionists always use the evidence to support their a priori assumption of common ancestry. Every time an ape skull is uncovered in Africa or Asia they are immediately declared on of our ancestors. Ask yourself this, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record.

Well exactly , the discoveries are degraded, often fragmentary and the links between them and other discoveries on the mythical ancestral tree are assumed. They do not constitute evidence of a link between one misunderstood fossil and the next.

 

[mindlight]

Do you predict we will never find an ancestral chimp fossil, mark?

So the essential theory is that an ape like ancestor exists from which humans, chimps, gorillas et al evolved.

This presupposes a series of different states of being as the ancestors descendants evolved into their various differentiated later forms over millenia.

The fossil record is meant to show this series of evolutionary steps and by various semi reliable dating mechanisms prove their placement in the ancestral tree.

Thus everytime someone digs up a piece of bone or skull fragment that looks like it might be a transitory stage it is meant to be a proof of the theory.

Take a step back a second and look around you. If you have travelled a little even better there are enough different shaped people out there to fill up many of your transitory stages for you.

I have met cromagnon man and various other ape like ancestors on the streets..;-)

Oh maybe different species and variation within a single species is actually sufficient to explain many of the socalled transitionary steps.

Maybe Darwinian evolution is as mythical as Marxs dialectical materialism and Nietzsches will to power.

 

[busterdog]

So the essential theory is that an ape like ancestor exists from which humans, chimps, gorillas et al evolved.

This presupposes a series of different states of being as the ancestors descendants evolved into their various differentiated later forms over millenia.

The fossil record is meant to show this series of evolutionary steps and by various semi reliable dating mechanisms prove their placement in the ancestral tree.

Thus everytime someone digs up a piece of bone or skull fragment that looks like it might be a transitory stage it is meant to be a proof of the theory.

Take a step back a second and look around you. If you have travelled a little even better there are enough different shaped people out there to fill up many of your transitory stages for you.

I have met cromagnon man and various other ape like ancestors on the streets..;-)

Oh maybe different species and variation within a single species is actually sufficient to explain many of the socalled transitionary steps.

Maybe Darwinian evolution is as mythical as Marxs dialectical materialism and Nietzsches will to power.

Seems to me the argument against creationism here is that it is very unlikely that you would have such a variety of forms of hominid unless they were in fact transitional forms.

Are there any hominid skeletons that are neither 1. modern ape species; nor 2. transitional forms? Mark? How is the distinction dealt with by evolutionists, if it is made? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/06/return-hobbits)

By the same token, are their modern species with anamolous morphologies that we can show as examples that are deceptively similar to allleged transitional forms?

I understand how some arguments would be crafted based upon the location of the find, dating of the strata, etc. to support the notion of a transitional form. OK fine. But, isn't it reasonably clear that this evidence can be fit into either a creationist or an evolutionary model?

I think the way the argument really goes is that there is so much evidence of evolution elsewhere, that it stands to reason that these are transitional forms? Does anyone think that is a fair approximation? Do the TEs want to respond as to whether this evidence "proves" evolutionary theory or is simply consistent with it (meaning evolution is still a theory)?

There was a video of a debate prompted by Bill Buckley. The guy from France (Belinsky) challenged the evolutionists to show transitional forms. Ken Miller said there are many. Belinsky was hammered, by some estimates. However, I remember thinking, what makes something transitional? Is it enough for a evolutionists to find more intermediate forms that a creationist expects? It seems the argument there showed a rhetorical advantage (not unlike the Miller mousetrap argument on IC), but not an evidential advantage.

In fact, I would challenge the TEs to realize that putting the beat on a creationist (well, we will assume the beating) could make it difficult for an evolutionist to really appreciate a particular piece of evidence for this reason. Miller, for example, had two similar structures (injector v. flagellum), but never really proved that this combination represented an evolutionary step from one species to another. I am willing to entertain the notion that Behe might have oversold his idea, or suggested an idea that evolutionists were able to oversell for him and then deconstruct. Similarly, even if you have found more transitional forms than Belinsky anticipated, shouldn't you remain skeptical that you have a genuine transitional form until you have even better evidence?

The evolutionists, I think, have a kind of gestalt theory that applies to transitional forms. You have whales with legs, speciation in flowers, injectors that look like flagella, so therefore, a good portion of these transitional hominids are probably human ancestors, not freaks or extinct species. So, if the creationists have said, no transitional forms exist, and you find some, does that make your theory other than a gestalt approach to the whole field? Notwithstanding creationists "moving the goalposts", shouldn't we assume that some of the transitional forms are simply distinct and extinct species that were never human (or modern ape) ancestors and that is not completely assured that we can know which is a cul de sac as such, and which is a true transitional form?

 

[gluadys]

Do the TEs want to respond as to whether this evidence "proves" evolutionary theory or is simply consistent with it (meaning evolution is still a theory)?

Good question, and this takes us to the basics of logic.

Basic hypothetical proposition: If A, then B.
We find B. Can we conclude Therefore A? No we cannot. What we can conclude is -(-A).

So why do fossils with intermediate characteristics support evolution and not special creation?

Because with special creation you cannot even propose the hypothesis.

If A, then B means that if A is true B must also be true. Clearly if humans are descendants of a primordial ape, it must be true that there were once species with characteristics intermediate between those of that ape and those of modern humans. There is no way A can be true and B not be true.

But if special creation is true, one may or may not have intermediate forms. One cannot say that if special creation is true one must have forms intermediate between 5 million year old apes and modern humans. One might have, but it is not a necessity, and truth to tell, special creation would be better served if there were none.

Transitional fossils do not "prove" evolution because evolution is not the only possible reason why they might exist. But they are evidentiary support for evolution because evolution requires that they exist, and no other explanation does.

The best a non-evolutionary explanation can do is say that for some unknown reason, it pleased a designer or deity to make the intermediate forms that are required by the theory of evolution --AND --for some equally inexplicable reason, refrain from making any intermediate forms forbidden by the theory of evolution (e.g. no half dogs-half cats)

Is it enough for a evolutionists to find more intermediate forms that a creationist expects?

It is enough to find one, for there is no reason for a creationist to expect any at all.

 

[Mallon]

So the essential theory is that an ape like ancestor exists from which humans, chimps, gorillas et al evolved.

This presupposes a series of different states of being as the ancestors descendants evolved into their various differentiated later forms over millenia.

'Predicts' would be a better word than 'presupposes'. That's how science works -- by testing predictions.
Interestingly, some 150 years ago, Darwin predicted that the fossil ancestors of humans would be found in Africa, based on the idea that we were most closely related to apes. And, lo and behold, his prediction has since been amply supported by fossil evidence.

Thus everytime someone digs up a piece of bone or skull fragment that looks like it might be a transitory stage it is meant to be a proof of the theory.

Fossils support Darwin's theory. They cannot ever prove it. There's no such thing as proof in science (as gluadys just patiently explained).
But yes, the fossils do support Darwin's theory, for we have found many fossils that show a combination of human and 'lower' ape traits. Have a look at the transitional hips of Homo erectus, for example:

They nicely span the morphological gap between Australopithecus and humans. And notably, the fossils aren't all simple bits and pieces, as you seem to imply. In many instances, we have near-complete skeletons. Like Turkana Boy.

Take a step back a second and look around you. If you have travelled a little even better there are enough different shaped people out there to fill up many of your transitory stages for you.

I have met cromagnon man and various other ape like ancestors on the streets..;-)

You say that, but can you show it? I don't think modern humans show the type of viable skeletal variation you assume. Human populations today don't exemplify the type of variation we see in this picture of fossil hominid skulls, for example:

 

[busterdog]

Transitional fossils do not "prove" evolution because evolution is not the only possible reason why they might exist. But they are evidentiary support for evolution because evolution requires that they exist, and no other explanation does.

Again, a rhetorical advantage only.

The best a non-evolutionary explanation can do is say that for some unknown reason, it pleased a designer or deity to make the intermediate forms that are required by the theory of evolution --AND --for some equally inexplicable reason, refrain from making any intermediate forms forbidden by the theory of evolution (e.g. no half dogs-half cats)

Well, I agree that it would better for creationists not to assume that they can play God better than anyone else. But, that leaves us at equipose on a rather small point in the whole evolution debate.

It is enough to find one, for there is no reason for a creationist to expect any at all.

To reiterate my point, the expectations of creationists are quite immaterial to whether your proof is satisfactory as proof. It is all well and good to feel comfortable with your working hypothesis. Proof is another matter on the question of any particular transitional form.

 

[busterdog]

'Predicts' would be a better word than 'presupposes'. That's how science works -- by testing predictions.
Interestingly, some 150 years ago, Darwin predicted that the fossil ancestors of humans would be found in Africa, based on the idea that we were most closely related to apes. And, lo and behold, his prediction has since been amply supported by fossil evidence.

Whether or not you found any transitional fossils, Darwin would be as well supported simply because of the similarity of modern species.

The notion of prediction is again, a pretty slim reed on which to lean.

What exactly could you find to prove that Darwin was wrong? Four eyed lizards? Double notochords? I had always thought maybe Darwin should predict greater disorder in species and classes due to the idea of random mutation and selection (and assuming an updated neoDarwinist hypothesis). Is there really an alternative to a similarity of morphology? Usually in a lab, you know what result would show that you are wrong. What is it here?

Fossils support Darwin's theory. They cannot ever prove it

.

I guess we all should be able to live with that, even if we are on the other side of the fence. As for the OP, this seems to be where it was headed. Mindlight?

 

[The Barbarian]

Whether or not you found any transitional fossils, Darwin would be as well supported simply because of the similarity of modern species.

But the fact of later discovery of so many predicted transitionals (as well as no transitionals not predicted) is much more compelling, as is the fact that DNA and conserved molecules give the same phylogenies to a high degree of precision.

The notion of prediction is again, a pretty slim reed on which to lean.

It's what science does. You might find it "a pretty slim reed", but it has one saving grace; it works. Works better than anything else used to understand the physical universe.

What exactly could you find to prove that Darwin was wrong?

Rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits. Mammals with feathers. I'm sure if you thought about it, you could think of many more.

I had always thought maybe Darwin should predict greater disorder in species and classes due to the idea of random mutation and selection (and assuming an updated neoDarwinist hypothesis). Is there really an alternative to a similarity of morphology?

Ah, it's not about a "similarity of morphology." That's what creationists say about evolution. Never ask Fidel Castro to tell you about capitalism.

Fossils support Darwin's theory. They cannot ever prove it

No theory is "proven." However, the mass of evidence makes it foolish to deny it.

 

[shernren]

Usually in a lab, you know what result would show that you are wrong.

You'd be surprised how much of a luxury that can be.

What exactly could you find to prove that Darwin was wrong? Four eyed lizards? Double notochords? I had always thought maybe Darwin should predict greater disorder in species and classes due to the idea of random mutation and selection (and assuming an updated neoDarwinist hypothesis). Is there really an alternative to a similarity of morphology?

Actually yes, four-eyed lizards and double notochords would be a little bit of a trouble for evolution.

But for me the big one would be chimerae. A faun, or a satyr, or a hippogriff, or even a good old (hexapedal!) dragon. Anything that messes up the vertebrate twin nested hierarchies would be a pretty big blow to evolution.

Go on, you've got your work cut out for you now

 

[Mallon]

The notion of prediction is again, a pretty slim reed on which to lean.

And yet the entirety of science depends on being able to test the predictions made by alternative hypotheses. All working theories in science have risen or fallen based upon how their predictions have held up to empirical testing. Dismissing the power of prediction as you do is a pretty shortsighted thing to do, methinks. Neocreationists claim not to reject science (e.g., http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science), but statements like this make it pretty clear that they do!

What exactly could you find to prove that Darwin was wrong?

Chimaeras.
Random distribution of life in the fossil record.
Discordance between phenotype and genotype.

There are many ways to prove Darwin's theory of common descent via natural selection was wrong. And yet no one has been able to do it yet. (BTW, simply doubling the number of features wouldn't discount evolution because mutations can bring about such morphologies all the time.)