This question is for those who believe in evolution...?

Question

First of all, I am not asking this from the point of view of a creationist, so please answer seriously and without just taking jabs at people of faith. The question is, there are vast gaps in the fossil record. If evolution were actually taking place, wouldn't the fossil record show an EXTREMELY smooth transition of the evolution of life forms? I mean really, really, extremely smooth. Changes according to evolution are so minor over many, many, many generations it seems there would be a much better record, and there would certainly be no talk of a "missing link" between man and his predecessors.

By the way, I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day about a new find of a pre-homosapien cranium, which was interesting; but what I found really interesting was an offhand comment one of the scientists made which was "You can put all of the fossils we have found to date of man and his ancestors in the back of a regular pickup truck. That ain't very many fossils.

Answer 1

For one thing, you have to actually find the fossils to fill in those gap. Finding all those fossils are not the easiest thing to accomplish, nor may those fossils be preserved in good condition. Also, you have to look through time and what nature can do to those fossils. There may be periods in time where, say volcanoes may have erupted and destroyed those fossils that now form the gap. Another possible reason why some fossils are missing is because of us humans, who have unknowningly misplaced or destroyed fossils throughout the course of history when we were creating massive castles and cathedrals. You should also avoid looking at evolutionary evidence as something of permanent nature, because fossils certainly do not remain in a pristine perfect condition for archaeologists to discover.

As for your Discovery Channel comment, I really don't think that such conclusions can be made so quickly. You should give people who believe in evolution a little more time to research to and try to prove their theory. As for that one scientist's remark, I don't believe that you should account one scientist's comment to be representative of the whole scientific community.

Answer 2

Well I am not a scientist, but my major in college was Biology. As I understand it there is a difference between the Theory of evolution, and the hypothesis that the origin of life came about through the process of evolution.

Now don't be confused by the word "theory" it has a different meaning in science than it does in everyday speech. In science a theory is the final step in the scientific method. In other words, in science nothing can be more than a theory. For example, gravity is a theory.

A very simple look at the scientific method is this:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:


1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

That being said, evolution is proven. It has been observed in the Lab, and in nature. The hypothesis that life came about through only the process of evolution, is still in steps 3 and 4 of the above method. Though it is the tilt of the majority of scientists that this will, indeed, eventual become the major theory of the origin of life.

As for fossils... well, they are extremely useful in tracing the adaptations of life over vast amounts of time. The problem is the process of fossilization is very rare. If something dies, it is extremely unlikely that it will be preserved as a fossil. However, there is a definite trend that the deeper you find a fossil buried in the earth the older it is (not always, but most of the time). It is also observed that the deeper the fossil is, the simpler the organism is. Which leads to the hypothesis that through the process of natural selection (with is anything but random) life gets more complex as time goes on. Does this prove that life came about through evolution... no. But it does provide evidence for it.

Anyway, this is just my understanding of the rational. Like I said I have a biology background... but as often happens in the real world, my career has nothing to do with science... so take it with a grain of salt.

Hope this helps! Thanks.

Answer 3

You are absolutely correct about something that many people (especially creationists) really misunderstand. Evolution is indeed an extremely smooth transitional process. That is precisely why the concept of "missing links" is so silly ... life does not operate in "links" or steps.

The gaps in the fossil record of many species (but not all ... many species have very smoothly documented fossil records) are much more a product of the process that creates the fossils themselves, not the theory of evolution. The creation of a fossil is an extremely *rare* event. (See source.)

Fossils are like photos in the photo album of your childhood ... an intermittent record of a smooth process of development. Think about it. Not every moment of your life, not every stage of your development, is documented in a photo. You might find several photos of yourself at (say) age 3, and a few at age 5, but you happen to find none at age 4 ... that does not mean that you were never 4 years old! And it does not mean that the photographs of you at age 3 and you at age 5 must be of two different and unrelated children.

The second thing to bear in mind is that fossil evidence is not the only source of evidence there is of evolution. EVEN IF THERE WASN'T A SINGLE FOSSIL EVER DISCOVERED, the evidence from genetics, molecular biology, comparitive morphology, embryology (e.g. dolphin embryos have legs, human embryos have gills slits and tails), vestigial and homologous structures (things like leg bones in whales and snakes), geographic distribution of species, speciation seen in nature and in the laboratory, bacteriology, virology, immunology, other medical research, etc., all provide evidence of evolution.

It is NOT just fossils.

Answer 4

You just add this to your understanding of evolution and
the religio/politico attacks against it. The term "missing link" is a debating trick. If you have fossil A and fossil B
which shows a sequence, they ask where is the fossil between them. And when you come up with fossil C which is between them, they ask where are the fossils between A and C an between B and C. And on and on.
Fossils are but one part of the foundation to evolutionary theory. There is also, comparative anatomy, embryology
and the trump card of them all - DNA.
All humans are within 99.9% identical to each other in DNA. Chimpanzees are 98% identical to human in DNA.
The mouse - 80%, the dog -75%, a housefly -50%,
a lily(flower) - 33%.
Siblings have the closest DNA in the same generation,
cousins 2nd, 2nd cousins 3rd, etc.
Now re-read the last 2 paragraphs and put 2 and 2 together. To be colloqial, "duhh", hello", "come on".
Believing in evolution is like believing in gravity. You
understand the evidence and accept it.

Answer 5

Not many human fossils -- but still there just the same. On the timeline of the earth since it's creation, man has only been here a blip, dinosaurs lived over a MILLION years longer than man so far. There are over a million of pieces of dinosaurs discovered, miles of fossils buried in earth strata. Evolution, so far, is the only logical answer. Remember, science is always a work in progress and any true scientist only wants the TRUTH. Also, who's to say that evolution wasn't CREATED? It all had to start somewhere.

Answer 6

Understand that the process of fossilization is very difficult and the ratio of fossils found compared to the number of "animals" that were EVER alive is very small. Thats why there aren't many specimens and why every find is very important for science. Most dead corpses eventually biodegrade and turn into a form of petroleum, or something like that, instead of turning into a fossil.

Answer 7

Scientists are still locating fossils of dinosaurs(new species), so I wouldn't doubt finding more fossils of humans too. When one looks at everything through this perspective, humankind is just a drop in the bucket of time.

Answer 8

Darwin mentioned that the variations that led to new species were like "hopeful monsters." Every now and then, a 'mutant' would spring up. In the ever-changing environment, some 'mutants' would find that their new trait helped them considerably. They got more food and produced more mini-monsters-creating new, slightly different species. All the every-now-and-thens added up over a few billion years. Most 'mutants' died before they could reproduce. This shot-in-the-dark process made for a bumpy, gap-y record.

Answer 9

because the conditionsfor a fossil to be made are very compicated and hard, this is backed up by the scientist when he says that we dont have many fossils

Answer 10

Natural biological evolution fails at all levels except for those species numbering more than about one quadrillion individuals with generation times less than three months and body sizes smaller than one centimeter.

http://www.reasons.org/