What is the evolutionary explanation of anatomically modern fossils? (Evolutionists only please)?

Question

I just want to make it clear that I am NOT a creationist. I'm a theistic evolutionist and am just genuinely curious about what a good response should be. I want to be able to argue FOR evolution in an effective way.

Creationists use the following examples to prove that evolution is false: http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/index.php

Hare Krishnas also make a number of claims about archaeological "cover-ups". What do you make of them?:

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/ (This website makes weird claims about modern man-made objects being found in millions of year old rock)
http://krishnascience.com/6_Coverups_1.html

Please try to have at least a brief look at the websites, because it is this type of claims that I'm interested in an explanation for.

This is a question for evolutionists, NOT creationists, so please don't reply with "Evolution is false" or "That ain't true, coz the Bible done say so..." I'm not interested.

Answer 1

The creationist site is beng very selective in its choice of fossils. The fossilised species are not the same as modern species and there are some significant differences which the creationists will not mention. In any case many modern species are descendents of animals that have changed little in a long time because they have had no need to change. The most successful creatures on the planet are the single celled creatures including the bacteria. While none of these is the same species as existed ten million years ago, they look very much the same.

I notice that the creationist site does not give the beautiful line of fossils from land animals to whales. They don't show some of the extraordinary proto-bird fossils that have been unearthed recently in China and they certainly won't show you the hominid skull sequence you can find here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

The forbidden archaeology guy is away with the pixies and really should not be given any serious thought. Any science text will show where he is wrong.

Answer 2

Animals evolve to fill ecological niches, that is ways of life. If an ecological niche exists continuously with little change in conditions no change is needed.

If the niche doesn't change in any significant way evolutionary change is selected against because an organism that is substantially different from its parent/s will be less likely to survive and reproduce than an offspring that is more like its parent/s.

Roaches are a fine example. Other than not being as big (fortunately) they haven't changed a whole lot. They are relatively small generalist scavengers who can eat just about anything and are decent enough at avoiding predation to be able reproduce repeatedly and prolifically within a single lifetime. They developed a winning form early on and never needed to come up with any radical changes to keep on trucking.

The mechanism is called 'stabilizing selection'

Good luck arguing against the silly caricature fundamentalists have of evolution.

Answer 3

I don't understand how they claim that a fossil grasshopper that looks a lot like a modern grasshopper is "proof that evolution is false" ... or as they put it, this one fact "demolishes evolution."

All things evolve. Some things evolve a lot, very fast. Some things evolve imperceptively because they have no *pressure* to change ... they are extremely well adapted for their environment, and so there is little selective pressure to change. So what?

But at the very least, it's nice to see a creationist site acknowledge that fossils are "millions of years old."

...

As for the forbiddenarchaeology web site, wow. Please note that that one has precisely the *opposite* claims as Christian Young-Earth creationism. Rather than insist that the entire natural history of man and all life on earth is compressed into 6,000 years ... this site does the opposite, insisting that not only man, but human civilization itself is expanded way back to 2.8 billion years! He has photo of a grooved metallic sphere he claims is 2.8 billion years old ... or "raised letterlike shapes found inside a block of marble" dated to be 500-600 million years old. To put things in perspective, 2.8 billion years ago there was NO OXYGEN in our atmosphere ... photosynthetic blue-green algae was just starting the process of photosynthesis that would put oxygen in the atmosphere.

In other words, instead of quoting Genesis, he's got: "The Vedic histories inform us that humans have existed since the beginning of the day of Brahma, about 2 billion years ago."

So all that aside, I don't see anything substantial on that site other than ads for the book that "caused shockwaves around the world, both in scientific circles and among the general public". They must have been pretty small shockwaves. A scientist doesn't deal in "shockwaves", he deals in evidence. This guy Michael Cremo doesn't seem to have any educational credentials other than joining a few archaeological societies, and doesn't list a *single* peer-reviewed paper.

Answer 4

The fossils are not anatomicly modern. They resemble modern creatures that have not improved on gross form, but have undergone subtle changes. Take a good look at the Creation Museum catalog and you will find all of 29 mammals and 7 birds. Given the vastness of the modern varieties of insects, it's not a great surprise that they can find some fossils that resemble the modern.

I'm not trained in archaeology, so I don't want to comment on finds for which I dont have details.

Answer 5

there is an historic species of shark (with 7 gills, i imagine) that has supposedly remained the same in accordance to molecular evolutionary biologists. yet, provided that the shark has no bones, purely cartilage, it is demanding to verify when you consider that cartilage decomposes earlier fossilization can happen.

Answer 6

Mayflies and grasshoppers are mighty successful in the forms they had 'way back then, and they're mighty successful now. Mighty successful forms, with large populations, don't have to change their looks to keep up with the times.