Why are there gaps in the fossil record?

[philadiddle]

"Why are there gaps in the fossil record?" This is often thought of as a question that is detrimental to evolution but in reality the fact that it is possible to ask the question is strong support for evolution.

There are two different ways that we could conclude there are no gaps in the fossil record:

1) Evolution is true and we have every fossil of every species to have ever lived.
2) Evolution is not true and there are no gaps because there is no succession of morphological features in the fossil record.

Of course, option 1 isn’t reasonable, we would expect to have some breaks in the line since we can’t expect everything that ever lived to be fossilized. But the real problem for creationists is that we have gaps in the fossil record, which means that fossils are found in the order that evolution would predict, and as expected not everything is fossilized.

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

 

[shernren]

Hydro(il)logical sorting.

 

[juvenissun]

"Why are there gaps in the fossil record?" This is often thought of as a question that is detrimental to evolution but in reality the fact that it is possible to ask the question is strong support for evolution.

There are two different ways that we could conclude there are no gaps in the fossil record:

1) Evolution is true and we have every fossil of every species to have ever lived.
2) Evolution is not true and there are no gaps because there is no succession of morphological features in the fossil record.

Of course, option 1 isn’t reasonable, we would expect to have some breaks in the line since we can’t expect everything that ever lived to be fossilized. But the real problem for creationists is that we have gaps in the fossil record, which means that fossils are found in the order that evolution would predict, and as expected not everything is fossilized.

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

When one species evolved into another species, should there be an obvious morphological change when it started to evolve?

This question should hit hard because there is simply no data which can be used to answer this question.

Everything else related to this issue is speculation or mental exercise.

 

[philadiddle]

When one species evolved into another species, should there be an obvious morphological change when it started to evolve?

Starts to evolve? The allele frequency is constantly changing. We don't see huge leaps in single generations. But it's still hard to answer your question because what qualifies as an "obvious" morphological change seems to be subjective. Also the time frame that qualifies as "starts" to evolve is also subjective. So your question doesn't really make sense, or maybe you can reword it for me.

This question should hit hard because there is simply no data which can be used to answer this question.

That's because the question doesn't make sense and it seems to be entirely subjective. Hard data can't confirm a vague subjective idea.

Everything else related to this issue is speculation or mental exercise.

How we find the fossils in the ground is not speculation, it's a fact. You can't deny that, so please answer the OP honestly.

 

[juvenissun]

Starts to evolve? The allele frequency is constantly changing. We don't see huge leaps in single generations. But it's still hard to answer your question because what qualifies as an "obvious" morphological change seems to be subjective. Also the time frame that qualifies as "starts" to evolve is also subjective. So your question doesn't really make sense, or maybe you can reword it for me.

That's because the question doesn't make sense and it seems to be entirely subjective. Hard data can't confirm a vague subjective idea.

How we find the fossils in the ground is not speculation, it's a fact. You can't deny that, so please answer the OP honestly.

The question is a frame and is waiting for qualifiers such as what you asked. So, the two specific qualifiers are:

The measurement could be microscopic or macroscopic. In terms of large fossils, let's say the precision is ±1 mm. If microscopic, how about 0.01 mm?

The start means when the 1 mm (or 0.01 mm) difference can be detected.

What else you need to know about this question?

No matter how do you specify it, I don't think you can find any answer to it. Because my question has hidden problem. The reason for that is your question has problem.

 

[philadiddle]

The question is a frame and is waiting for qualifiers such as what you asked. So, the two specific qualifiers are:

The measurement could be microscopic or macroscopic. In terms of large fossils, let's say the precision is ±1 mm. If microscopic, how about 0.01 mm?

The start means when the 1 mm (or 0.01 mm) difference can be detected.

What else you need to know about this question?

No matter how do you specify it, I don't think you can find any answer to it. Because my question has hidden problem. The reason for that is your question has problem.

I fail to see how this relates to the OP in any way. I just want to know, how do you explain the order that we find the fossils in? Why does it match what evolution predicts? These are simple straightforward questions with no hidden errors, just answer them honestly.

 

[juvenissun]

I fail to see how this relates to the OP in any way. I just want to know, how do you explain the order that we find the fossils in? Why does it match what evolution predicts? These are simple straightforward questions with no hidden errors, just answer them honestly.

Seriously, evolutionist can't predict anything. They only make story on what they can see. (Note: finding b in between a and c is not a prediction at all)

Why are (morphological) gaps in fossil record? Because evolution does not work. You may give me an example that no gap is found between evolved species(?). Assume the precision is as what I specified. How about the well-studied example of chimp to human? Is there a gap in between them? Why?

 

[duordi]

Heavy things on the bottom light on the top - also location at the time of the flood, that is water creatures on the bottom and move to the higher elevations. Then of course the designation of age is selected by the one who configures the theory. Use best fit techniques to make it seem as logical as possible.

The exceptions are determined to be "expected".

If anything is really unexplainable then it happened a long long time ago so the conditions which are unknown can be assumed to be whatever is necessary to support the predominant theory.

How an I doing?

On the gaps in the fossil record.
Its not just gaps, its gaps between species and lack of gaps inside species.
Ransom loss of fossils are not structured in there selection.

Duane

 

[That Canadian Guy]

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

But that is just the issue. We apparently have the fossils in a particular order, but with very little to no fossil evidence in proving sets of organisms being able to progress into a next "set" that is completely unique and indistinguishable from the previous one. The fossil patterns simply do not present to us this reality.

Also, what Duordi said...

Its not just gaps, its gaps between species and lack of gaps inside species.

 

[philadiddle]

Seriously, evolutionist can't predict anything. They only make story on what they can see. (Note: finding b in between a and c is not a prediction at all)

Well as you've been told numerous times Tiktaalik was predicted to be what it was where it was:

First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish--tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.
Tiktaalik makes another gap - The Panda's Thumb

Can you show me how flood geology has ever been useful? What about studying core samples for an oil company, do you think they'll hire creationists or people educated with a proper understanding of geology and paleontology?

Why are (morphological) gaps in fossil record? Because evolution does not work. You may give me an example that no gap is found between evolved species(?). Assume the precision is as what I specified. How about the well-studied example of chimp to human? Is there a gap in between them? Why?

Please name one of the gaps in the fossil record.

 

[philadiddle]

Heavy things on the bottom light on the top - also location at the time of the flood, that is water creatures on the bottom and move to the higher elevations. Then of course the designation of age is selected by the one who configures the theory. Use best fit techniques to make it seem as logical as possible.

This doesn't fit what we find at all.

If anything is really unexplainable then it happened a long long time ago so the conditions which are unknown can be assumed to be whatever is necessary to support the predominant theory.

Sounds like you aren't interested in learning how science works.

How an I doing?

It depends on what your goal is here. If you are making fun of creationists then you are doing quite well. If you are trying to mock evolutionists then you are just making yourself look ignorant. If you are trying to seriously answer the question....

On the gaps in the fossil record.
Its not just gaps, its gaps between species and lack of gaps inside species.
Ransom loss of fossils are not structured in there selection.

Duane

Which specific gap between what species is a problem for you?

 

[philadiddle]

But that is just the issue. We apparently have the fossils in a particular order, but with very little to no fossil evidence in proving sets of organisms being able to progress into a next "set" that is completely unique and indistinguishable from the previous one. The fossil patterns simply do not present to us this reality.

Also, what Duordi said...

As I asked the other, please give an example of a set of organisms that gives way to a completely different set with no transitions. Please be specific and detailed.

 

[juvenissun]

Well as you've been told numerous times Tiktaalik was predicted to be what it was where it was:

First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish--tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.
Tiktaalik makes another gap - The Panda's Thumb

Can you show me how flood geology has ever been useful? What about studying core samples for an oil company, do you think they'll hire creationists or people educated with a proper understanding of geology and paleontology?

Please name one of the gaps in the fossil record.

That is NOT prediction at all. That is finding b in between a and c. If they found it, they made a story. If they didn't, they shut up. That is what paleontology is.

I believe there are many creationists in geological industry. If I worked in an oil company, you probably won't notice that I am a creationist. The practical (routine) side of geology (pretty boring) does not need any special idea from the so-called Flood Geology. Ideas from Creationism would be most precious in the study of fundamental understandings. For example, the (true) age of oil, which oil companies couldn't be careless.

Creationism can also be precious in the construction of alternative model of the earth. Everyone said the rate of tectonics is slow. However, there are many puzzles that can not be solved due to this limitation. Creationism suggests a very fast crustal movement. Indeed, this unproven idea could give a satisfactory answer to those unsolved problems. So, I would say yes, Creationism could be a very useful guide in the modification of some fundamental concepts in geology.

 

[juvenissun]

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

This is a good question. I don't have a scientific explanation to it. But I do have a science/religion mixed one.

However, it is a similar hard question to evolutionist.

 

[juvenissun]

Please name one of the gaps in the fossil record.

I guess a zoologist can detect that bones of Chihuahua and Retriever belong to the same species(?), but they are different from that of a wolf. The reason he can tell the similarity and the difference is because there are gaps between them.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Why are there gaps in the fossil record?" This is often thought of as a question that is detrimental to evolution but in reality the fact that it is possible to ask the question is strong support for evolution.

Let me respond by asking you two questions that evolutionists rarely address. Where are the chimpanzee ancestors and what is the scientific definition for evolution? The so called 'gaps' in human evolution from apes are simply being filled in with chimpanzee ancestors and evolution as it is properly defined in the epistemology otherwise know as science simply focuses on cause and effect relationships for a given phenomenon.

There are two different ways that we could conclude there are no gaps in the fossil record:

Evolution is true and we have every fossil of every species to have ever lived.

Evolution is not true and there are no gaps because there is no succession of morphological features in the fossil record.

How many features define the human species? How many features are used to define the taxonomy or species period? Your talking in generalities and fossils are a poor way of establishing lines of ancestral descent. The best way to approach the subject is to find a small sampling of features and determine the known bases for those features, i.e. specific genes. Then you have something to work with, fossils are fragmentary at best.

Of course, option 1 isn’t reasonable, we would expect to have some breaks in the line since we can’t expect everything that ever lived to be fossilized. But the real problem for creationists is that we have gaps in the fossil record, which means that fossils are found in the order that evolution would predict, and as expected not everything is fossilized.

Now this undefined 'evolution' is making predictions without us knowing what evolution is or even what predictions it's making. Then you want to rationalize away that fact that the fossil record indicates stasis and a limited range of variety. This is not going to result in a comprehensive view of natural history, all it does is bury the substantive questions.

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

My question is simply this, where are the chimpanzee ancestors? The only real transitional that matters in Christian theism is the mythical stone age ape man, Homo habilis. If that link is actually being fabricated with chimpanzee fossils that are incapable of producing tools none of the other ancestors matter. Homo habilis is the modern Piltdown hoax, chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as human ancestors.

Most important here, define your central term, after that the rest happens naturally. Then you might want to take a look at the root causes, what would have to change and what the means to that end would have to be.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[That Canadian Guy]

As I asked the other, please give an example of a set of organisms that gives way to a completely different set with no transitions. Please be specific and detailed.

Cambrian Period, plain and simple. Rarity of fossilization has nothing to do with the fossil trends, by the way.

Also, if there are no transitions or nowhere near enough transitions, it isn't even possible to conclusively prove that one set of organisms arose from a previous set. This is circular reasoning.

 

[philadiddle]

That is NOT prediction at all. That is finding b in between a and c. If they found it, they made a story. If they didn't, they shut up. That is what paleontology is.

If you don't understand what a prediction is I'm not going to argue with you further about it.

I believe there are many creationists in geological industry.

Name some. I know of Glenn Morton who went into the oil industry as a YEC, and I'm sure you know what happened to him.

If I worked in an oil company, you probably won't notice that I am a creationist. The practical (routine) side of geology (pretty boring) does not need any special idea from the so-called Flood Geology. Ideas from Creationism would be most precious in the study of fundamental understandings. For example, the (true) age of oil, which oil companies couldn't be careless.

The age of oil matters because we can study core samples to locate eras that left a lot of oil behind. Creationism doesn't help us with this, only the old earth model and evolution (using stratigraphy) helps us in the real world.

Creationism can also be precious in the construction of alternative model of the earth. Everyone said the rate of tectonics is slow. However, there are many puzzles that can not be solved due to this limitation. Creationism suggests a very fast crustal movement. Indeed, this unproven idea could give a satisfactory answer to those unsolved problems. So, I would say yes, Creationism could be a very useful guide in the modification of some fundamental concepts in geology.

While I disagree I think I'll leave this alone for now so that our topic doesn't keep ballooning out. Feel free to start a new thread on how creationism provides a superior model for explaining plate techtonics.

 

[philadiddle]

My question to creationists then is; Why is the fossil record found in such a way that there are different sets of organisms in each era, in succession, that seem to progress from one set to the next?

This is a good question. I don't have a scientific explanation to it. But I do have a science/religion mixed one.

However, it is a similar hard question to evolutionist.

With evolution we know there would be different sets of organisms as we move in time through the layers of strata, creationism doesn't even have a basic argument to explain this. How do you figure it is an equally hard question for evolutionists?

 

[philadiddle]

Let me respond by asking you two questions that evolutionists rarely address. Where are the chimpanzee ancestors and what is the scientific definition for evolution? The so called 'gaps' in human evolution from apes are simply being filled in with chimpanzee ancestors and evolution as it is properly defined in the epistemology otherwise know as science simply focuses on cause and effect relationships for a given phenomenon.

If humans and chimps had a common ancestor and that ancestor had evolved from an even earlier version then some of the fossils we find that are human ancestors would also be chimp ancestors.

How many features define the human species? How many features are used to define the taxonomy or species period? Your talking in generalities and fossils are a poor way of establishing lines of ancestral descent. The best way to approach the subject is to find a small sampling of features and determine the known bases for those features, i.e. specific genes. Then you have something to work with, fossils are fragmentary at best.

Do you think that as we dig through older and older layers of strata we find different organisms? Why is it that we see subsets of older organisms as we get into newer layers? I will agree that fossil evidence is the weakest, but what we do have still matches evolution and contradicts special creation. As I'm sure you've been told genetic evidence is the strongest and most compelling evidence for evolution, but that's another topic.

Now this undefined 'evolution' is making predictions without us knowing what evolution is or even what predictions it's making. Then you want to rationalize away that fact that the fossil record indicates stasis and a limited range of variety. This is not going to result in a comprehensive view of natural history, all it does is bury the substantive questions.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

My question is simply this, where are the chimpanzee ancestors?

Ardi is one. How many do you need to fully satisfy you?

Most important here, define your central term, after that the rest happens naturally. Then you might want to take a look at the root causes, what would have to change and what the means to that end would have to be.

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by defining my central term.