No fossil evidence?

Question

How can you accept the theory of Evolution as a fact when there is no fossil evidence to support it? The idea of Evolution would have to have species that are transitionary between one species and another. There are none.

Where is the evidence then? any links?
Common DNA factors doesnt Prove anything. Especially not Evolution.

Books from the 70's ? my resources im using are things im reading off the internet that are from authorities in their fields, Biologists and anthorpologists.. ill provide links in a sec. Lets see what you got

Answer 1

Dear Wolfgame,

It is late and I am going to bed, but I hope this helps. By the way I have read Talk Origins as Jim L has suggested, and I must admit that there are several arguments that they use against Creationists, but when Creationists use the same argument they cry foul. Here is a Copy and Paste, enjoy

--------------------------------------

One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever sleight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person.

Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less. What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!

If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.

The problems only get worse for the evolutionist. Not only is there no sign of evolution leading up to the complex invertebrates, but also missing in action are the enormous number of transitionals that must have existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates. The transformation from invertebrate to vertebrate would have been a major event in the earth’s evolutionary history. Yet the fossil record does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation. This problem has been exacerbated by recent finds in China of highly advanced and extremely well preserved vertebrate life forms in the lower Cambrian strata. These fossils have collapsed the available time for the invertebrate to vertebrate transformation by at least 50 million years, to between 2 to 3 million years. This is a blink of the eye in geological time (a period called the Cambrian Explosion), prompting the two primary Chinese scientists involved to bluntly admit that these fossils roundly contradict the theory of evolution.

The nightmare gets worse for the evolutionist when we consider that the wide diversity of body plans that suddenly appear in this brief 2 to 3 million year window are markedly distinct morphologically from each other. This disparity of body plans is followed by stasis, where there are no incremental alterations to the body plans through the entire history of the fossil record up to the present. This is precisely what one would expect if special creation were true, and a stark contradiction to evolution.
So all that is left is a sliver of a corner of the fossil record, the vertebrates. This is the rabbit in the hat for the evolutionist. The bulk of this sliver is made up of fish, where we again find no sign of evolution whatsoever. A small remainder of this miniscule sliver is left for the land-dwelling vertebrates. Of the land-dwelling vertebrate species unearthed, 95% are represented by a bone or less . Yet this is where the evolutionist concentrates all his efforts to "show" to his audience that "the fossil record supports evolution"! Their audience is completely unaware that all of the examples they are being shown come from an incredibly puny section marred with incomplete data. They are conveniently left in the dark regarding the other 99.99% of the data, from a portion of the fossil record that is far more complete, that shows NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER! This is their sleight-of-hand. This is a sham. This is brainwashing. There is no other way to put it



Fred Williams
January 2002

http://evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm

-----------------

hope that helped

Bryan

Answer 2

In order for a fossil to be preserved, there need to be a set of quite rare conditions present at the time of the animals death. For example, not many fossils would be left of today's animals in say, the Serengeti. Scavengers will eat and scatter the remains of the carcass and even the bugs and micro-organisms will break down almost all organic matter so that no virtually bones or other evidence is left. So therefore, there could have been countless species that did exist at one time yet no evidence remains to verify it. That's why fossil records are inaccurate to an extent although there is still enough evidence for me to choose evolution over the 7 day creation story.

Answer 3

When the evidence isn't stretched beyond the truth. Lakes just materialized or are newer than billions of years ago. TO assume that they lived underwater is ludicrous, since the lake is newer than the fossil. THe fossil could have been embedded on land and later the lake was made, created, formed later on. They differentiated the fact that it was not found or had lived in the oceans, but the lakes, which have not existed in those times.....Go beyond what you read. Or show proof that the lake existed in the time the alleged fossil existed on earth. It is also known that land and ocean has since been separated, and was once all one piece of land, so figure in that and the assortment of lakes that appeared before or after the change in the earth. There are so many other concepts to consider.

Answer 4

It takes millions of years to make a fossil. Read and learn.
There are many factors involved in becoming fossilized.
Please be aware that for us to find even one unbroken, is a miracle.
God is giving us clues as to how His process of creation is so mind-boggling large scale that we are puny beside it.
How you limit my God!
And transitions have been made between T-rex and the raptors we see flying in the sky today.
Also, studies on the fish population of the Great Lakes shows that a certain species of fish, within the last century has evolved an adaptation so unique that it has become its own species.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/taphonomy.html

Answer 5

Disgraceful LIES.

The vast fossil record of hundreds of thousands of invertebrate species shows is absolutely chock full of 'transitional species'. Visit a decent library, pick a random book on invertebrate fossils, and look at all the pretty pictures.

Tells you something that Creationist propagandists are so completely and utterly lacking in morals....

Answer 6

I suggest you do at least a little reading about evolution before making a fool of yourself. There is plenty of fossil evidence, transitory and otherwise, for many species. Do your homework.

Answer 7

you know, I'm not even going to answer these questions any more until you creationist-bait-eating guys take the time to throw away your biology books printed in the 70's and catch up with 37 years of fossil discoveries.

Wow, is it taking you an hour to find those links? Somebody below posted something you should take a good long look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Answer 8

Think about the consequences of your proposition; if there is no evolution, then someone (God, perhaps?) must have designed things just as they are. This means that God gave male mammals nipples, "designed" the parasite worm that blinds babies in Africa, and "designed" tapeworms, and malaria; Did your God really do that? Your God is so dumb He put nipples on men?

it also means you don't believe we ever need any new antibiotics, because if organisms never evolve, the old ones must still work..

Answer 9

You're just quoting creationist propaganda. Do some unbiased research.

The third link below is probably the most useful to you as a starting place, because it seems to be a genuine attempt to reconcile evolution and theology.

Answer 10

First, there's plenty of fossil evidence.

Second, who needs fossil evidence? Evolution has been proved by looking at plant, animal and human DNA. We ARE all interrelated.