Which fact is the basis for using the fossil record as evidence that evolution has taken place?

Answer 1

People who say that we have a "handful" of fossil examples don't know what they're talking about. We have thousands of excellent examples. (See first source.)

Or people who say that science has not come up with "conclusive proof" of evolution ... as if science EVER claimed to have "conclusive proof" of anything. You prove things in math ... not science. In science you don't deal in "proof" but in "evidence" ... and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

... But rather than go through *all* the evidence, let's just limit our discussion to the *fossil* evidence for now:

There are MANY facts about fossils that provide evidence that evolution has taken place. You asked for one, but I have to boil it down to three main categories: transitional fossils, stratigraphy, and absolute dating.

First, the slow development through transitional forms is clearly documented in the fossil record. (See source 1.) E.g. the fossil record of transitional forms ...
... from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
... from primitive fish to bony fish
... from fishes to first amphibians
... among amphibians
... from amphibians to first reptiles
... among reptiles
... from reptiles to first mammals
... from reptiles to first birds
... in the history of primates, rodents, carnivores, rabbits, cetaceans (whales and dolphins), horses, rhinos, tapirs, elephants, sirenians (dugongs & manatees), artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)

Second, is how these are *always* in the correct order and the correct layers of sediment (what's called stratigraphy ... see source 2), no matter where on the earth they are found. E.g. in the evolution of the horse, Archaeohippus fossils look more like the modern horse than Mesohippus ... and Achaeohippus ALWAYS appears in a higher layer than Mesohippus fossils. We NEVER find an Archaeohippus fossil buried in a lower rock layer than a Mesohippus fossil. This is true for ALL groups of related fossils.

And third, is the absolute *dating* of these fossils. (Again, someone who says that scientists date rocks by the fossils they contain doesn't know what they're talking about ... this is how they *correlate* layers from different parts of the world, but not how they *date* them ... again for dating rocks, they use radiometry (using the known decay rate of radioactive elements), not the embedded fossils, and not carbon dating ... see source 3.)

In other words, not only are the fossils ALWAYS showing the correct structures, and found in the correct layers, and order, but the dates produced by radiometry correspond to the amount of time needed for one form to evolve into another.

And incidentally, these absolute dates always correspond to the dates derived independently using genetic methods such as the 'molecular clock' (Google it).

But as you only asked for *fossil* evidence, I won't go into genetic evidence or all of the other types of evidence for evolution (like vestigial structures, homologies, atavisms, embryology, bacteriology, virology, imunology, biogeography, etc. etc.)

Answer 2

I am not an expert in this subject, but it seems to me that the presence of forms no longer around is proof of extinction, and the lack of fossils of forms that are around now is proof that something new arouse.

Fossils of plants that show climatic change, glacial patterns, and the records of rocks that demonstrate plate tectonics strongly suggest that the physical structure and local climates of the planet has changed.

If this is true, then species have been challenged throughout history with new foods, new cliimates, new prey, new predators, and new challenges. Obviously, at least some species mastered these challenges and survived... and that is pretty much the very definition of evolution, isn't it?

Answer 3

1. Homology of structures: evolution built bird wings, dolphin fins, your arms, and bat wings out of the same starting bones (same number and organization). A creator could have started over with new bone structures to fit these needs, but evolution had to work with what was already there.

2. Vestigial structures: whales don't need hips and leg bones, we don't need a tail bone, but we still have them from our mammal ancestors

3. Transitional forms: although the conditions for making fossils are extremely rare and we should not expect to find fossils for all links between related species, lots and lots and lots and lots of them have been found (archaeopteryx, ambulocetus, my username, etc)

to name a few...

Answer 4

There isn't one fact, it's hardly that simple. The general idea is that there are strata. Each strata has certain forms. No horse has ever been next to a dinosaur and no trilobite has been next to a human. Then we see some skeletons with similar features to other skeletons and deduce that the ones higher up came later (unless there was a fold).

Answer 5

While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

The fossil does *not* show evolution, it shows stasis.

Evolutionists are fond of using circular reasoning when dating fossils. They first *assume* the rocks have been laid down slowly over millions of years. They then date fossils by where they appear in this geological timeline. Other times they will date the rocks by which fossils they find in it.

The idea that the rocks are ancient is highly questionable. Problems include bent strata, polystrate fossils, the clean division between layers, etc
Check the link below for loads of good fossil info

Answer 6

It acts as a "puzzle in time" which we can piece together allowing us to draw conclusions as to which species arose from what and when.

Using these pieces we draw a stunning conclusions - as to the remarkable similarities in some species which lived and died in eras very close to one another.

This leads one to believe that one species leads to the rise of another species - or evolved into it - due to some sort of need - climatic - predatory or whatever.

Answer 7

Evolution is more a belief system about the past than it is science. Yes there are fossils, but no one has come up with conclusive proof that they denote an evolutionary process. Here are some good onlinevideos on the topic:

http://answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/default.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/answersWithKen.asp

These videos are from a Christian perspective, but are scientifically based.

Answer 8

Well the fossil record has been searched greatly looking for "missing links" but it really hasn't been very good for that. Carbon dating is also full of statistical errors and unscientific leaps of judgement. If you want to read material by actual scientists who do not believe in evolution or old earth theories go to the answers in genesis website. Real, creditable, scientists publish articles there on why they don't believe that the evolution theory stands up to critical scientific standards.

Answer 9

The fact that the fossils exist.

There is, of course, more to it than that.

Answer 10

Carbon dating disproves the age of the world as determined by biblical scholars.