Are skeletons or fossil remains valid evidence for the entire theory of evolution?

Question

I'd like to hear answers from this particular section

I have a few questions:

Evolution is a huge subject. I may agree that species gradually adapt to their habitats in single generations, but I don't believe they change their physical forms (other than colors, etc-like chameleons)

Couldn't the fossils of certain species just be a differenct species rather than one that 'evolved into another'?

Just because it looks the same (has a similar animal kingdom classification), does that make it the evolutionary descendant of another species?

If the 'neanderthals' really existed, what proves that they evolved into modern Cro-Magnon humans? Tools?

Couldn't they have been a whole different species? How do we know what they looked like 40,000 years ago? How do we know their thoughts? How do we know their history?

How does a skull fragment that is oddly shaped prove to be a different species of human? Couldn't it have been a diseased individual (There are skeletal disorders.)?

How do they extract DNA from old fossils and bones?

Answer 1

They are the most valid explanation available to people with open, functioning minds. The only alternative is to believe in a mysterious supernatural man in the sky who is simultaneously "eternal & unchanging" and believes in "an eye for an eye" AND "turn the other cheek"...

To disbelieve evolution is to believe a 'being' exists smart enough to 'design' all this, but simultaneously mean enough to kill babies with cancer...

I'll take a possibly flawed Theory over a definitely flawed deity any day...

Answer 2

"I may agree that species gradually adapt to their habitats in single generations ..."
I believe you mean, over many generations.


"but I don't believe they change their physical forms (other than colors, etc-like chameleons)".
Why not? You can see dramatic changes to form in a dog in a matter of only about 200 years. Can you not imagine what can happen in 20,000,000 years?!

"Couldn't the fossils of certain species just be a differenct species rather than one that 'evolved into another'?"

Well, yes ... but if you look closely you see patterns. E.g. if you start with very old fossils, and work your way forward towards newer and newer fossils (as dated using various methods), you can see a progression of forms. These are not unrelated organisms.

In other words, THERE ARE *LOTS* OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. (Those people who say flat out that there are "no" transitional fossils are either lying, or know NOTHING about fossils.) Before you reject this out of hand, please see Source 1. Other people have also referenced talkorigins.org because they have *very* well resourced, and backed up information ... almost *too* thorough (there's so much).

"Just because it looks the same (has a similar animal kingdom classification), does that make it the evolutionary descendant of another species?"

It's WAY more than just the same animal kingdom classification. Paleontologists measure precise ratios of lower-leg to upper-leg, or the length of the snout, the angle and position of the eyes, the shapes of the teeth, the positions of the nostrils, etc. etc. (For example, see my source #2 and the pictures of the cranial features in Neanderthal.) They track *dozens* of features across hundreds of specimens that are carefully dated. It isn't just that Specimen (a) and (f) have the same feature #1 ... but *species* A, B, C, D, E, F, G all have features 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 that are *all* transforming slowly over the course of 10 million years. It makes it really hard to dismiss these as a bunch of unrelated species ... they aren't just related ... but they are related *in sequence.*

"If the 'neanderthals' really existed, what proves that they evolved into modern Cro-Magnon humans? Tools?"

Great example! In this case the physical development of Neanderthal just doesn't fit in the transitional stages we see from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. So most scientists agree that Neanderthal was NOT an ancestor of Homo sapiens. (Cro magnon was not a different species, just an early group of H. sapiens in N. Europe.) Neanderthal was NOT an ancestor, but a separate branch that went extinct. See source #2.

So I hope you see that paleontologists aren't liars or idiots. If something doesn't fit the transitional series, they say so. If it does fit, they say so. They really do know what they're doing. They live, eat, and breathe this stuff ... they read and write papers and subscribe to paleontologist magazines and they LOVE to prove each other wrong ... and for that very reason when they agree on something, that is a very strong statement.

"Couldn't they have been a whole different species?"

Yes. Neanderthalls WERE a whole different species.

"How does a skull fragment that is oddly shaped prove to be a different species of human? Couldn't it have been a diseased individual (There are skeletal disorders.)?"

These are excellent questions (you would make a good paleontologist!). In fact, this is exactly the debate that's going on right now about Homo florsiensis (see source #3). They have found various fragmentary skeletons, and a very small skull, and the question is whether this is truly a different species, or an abnormal individual (a disorder called microcephaly). They are still debating that one, until they find another skull.

But with other species (like Neanderthal), they have many specimens, so we can distinguish between an abnormal individual and a whole other species. On these other species, the scientists are in pretty much agreement about most things (although they still love to debate the details ... that's the fun).

So I hope that answers your questions. There is a *LOT* of good information about fossils out there. At least listen to what the fossil experts (paleontologists) have to say, not just the creationist "scientists", many of whom have never held a single Hominid fossil in their hand, much less studied hundreds of them for the better parts of their lives.

Thanks for asking!

Answer 3

First, evidence is what one uses to prove or disprove a theory. Since the existence of fossils neither prove or disprove evolution, they are not evidence. We are correct in saying fossils exist for we have them to examine, but to extrapolate how they were created is not possible.
As for no fossils of transition species, one could use the example of the car. The venerable '57 chevy for which there are still many examples around started out as a prototype. Maybe a few were built. Tested, redesigned, tested, redesigned etc until what we know today went into mass production. So you could have a '49 Chevy and a '57 but none of the intermediaries.
As far as inteligent design (pc for creation) ask yourself this. If everything is forced by evolution, adapting to ones surroundings, and enviroment, why is there so much diversity in life. Why can you find such a wide range of plants and animals in a small area. Wouldn't evolution dictate that only the "one" perfect lifeform for that "one " area exist. Take a forrest for example. A pine forrest by name is made up of pine trees, yet will contain several other species of tree as well. Why is not just pine trees? Shouldn't evolutionary pressure forced out all other trees from that area; or left only one type? The one perfect tree for that area. Well the answer is there is evolution going on, from the planet, to the continent, to the forrest, to the shaded valley, to the patch of dirt in the corner, to the little bugs crawling in it. And this goes on everywhere, everyday.
But if you believe in evolution, you have to ask yourself why isn't it done yet? The earth has had 6 billion years to get it right and it's not done yet. So maybe it's more than just evolution.

Answer 4

People who devote their lives to the study of bones are so familiar with living and extinct species, and with pathological specimens, that they can make these sorts of determinations.

DNA evidence usually corroborates the fossil evidence, and vice versa.

Neanderthals were eliminated by the Cro-Magnons. The latest DNA evidence shows that the Cro-Magnon people are the modern-day Basques.

Answer 5

If you believe that species gradually adapt to their habitats and then do not speciate when the selection pressure and variation is right, then you may as well just be a stone creationist. Speciation follows from evolution, as the dawn follows the night. You are right about one thing; evolution is a big subject. You need an education. Go here.

http://www.talkorigins.org

This site is made for people like you.

Answer 6

Actually, the fossil record disproves the idea of evolution:
1) All fossils of species appear fully formed and suddenly.
2) There are no transitions between species, only new species and multiple copies of known ones.

These pieces of rocks carrying the imprint of bones that once were part of a living creature are the actual "facts." How we interpret those facts is everything. The existence of these fossilized bones themselves indicates that the entire earth was once covered completely in water.

Answer 7

Fossil evidence is important.
So is the chemistry of DNA.
So is the study of exisiting populations and genetic and morphological diversity.
So is comparative anatomy and physiology.

*All* of biology is shot through and through with evolution.

Answer 8

No, because with the millions of fossils found, there are NO transitional forms. Evolutionist have been searching for transitional forms for 150 years. They haven't found them yet, and they never will.

Fossils are the remains of plants and animals, many of which are now extinct, that were completely covered in a catastrophic event, such as a flood. Otherwise, they would have decomposed.