What's up with the fossil record?

Question

That arguement is great, but old. The way of the future is GENETICS baby! It even more beautifully describes how genes transfer, making evolution blatantly viable. Atheists, maybe this new tactic willl convince those with gaps in their fossil records.(maybe their medulla oblongata is so messed up their awkward breathing withholds enough oxygen to allow them to believe increationism...).

I mean genetic is almost perfect. And all I see is fossil. I know you can't paste the bio book (which is what is needed) but simple genetics will destroy their arguments. Unless..."It's all satans fault" agian.

Theoretically spe...Let's start with Mendelian Genetics.

Did you know that breeding two pink flowers can magically cause a white one to appear? Creation?...no.

Mendelian genetics VERY SIMPLIFIED produces this:genes are passed down through an unkown (this is later discovered as DNA). Through gene transfer, certain traits are passed down. The traits that are more succesfull are passed down (wow, I won't even mention dominant and recessive because you look ignorant). So the less useful traits die away. This is why Europeans are whit, Asians brown, Africans black...all more varying amounts of melanin, some more sucessful, some less.

DNA:
DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It is the method by which genetic material is passed down. It is a long and complicated pathway, but essentially your genes are scrambled in order but kept intact, then fused with your partners. The more sucessful gene carriers will mate more passing down their gene flow.outof space read bio book fool.

You idiot I pwned you and all you have to say is "beans have more genes than us." Obviously your peonic mind believes the bigger the number the better..many genetic diseases are caused because of a mistake in the replication process in which extra chromosomes/parts of chromosomes are added. More is not better, it just makes that particular thing a bean and not a human.

And yes, those genetics are related to ours.I am sure you find this increduloous as your small mind cannot understand it.

Answer 1

Fossil and genetic evidence are both important, because they confirm each other's findings. Fossils gives us near-direct historical information in the form of "snapshots" of life on Earth at various times and places in our planet's history; genetics allow us to compare current (and recent) species on a molecular level to see, in a different way, the vestiges of evolutionary history. They are thus attacking the same problem (at least, when used to help us understand our evolutionary history) from two different angles, and their consistent correspondence is an incredibly powerful tool for demonstrating the reliability of each method.

In my view, the main reason fossils are used more often than genetic information in creation-evolution debates is because fossil evidence is so much simpler and easier for laypeople to understand. The main counter-argument against the fossil record is "God/Satan put those fossils in the ground to test/deceive us". This is a blatantly weak argument, which is one reason that its use has emboldoned the continued use of fossil evidence to support evolution. In contrast, arguments against genetic evidence, e.g., "Seemingly arbitrary or useless aspects of our DNA could just have purposes we aren't aware of yet" and "The molecular similarity between organisms is a sign that they were all designed by the same Creator, not that they all evolved from the same organism", are harder to convincingly refute, requiring both more philosophical sophistication and more biological expertise.

This is not to say that genetic evidence is any weaker than fossil evidence; if anything, as you correctly note, precisely the opposite is the case. However, their greater complexity makes it more difficult for people untrained in biology to effectively utilize such evidence. And it makes it difficult to sway creationists who are even less trained in biology, and thus won't understand the significance of genetic correspondences.

This ignorance of genetics among the general public is one of the single biggest reasons that evolution is so poorly understand, and so frequently contested, by laypeople. It is a huge blow to the case supporters of evolution try to make, because as a result the full force of their arguments, and the weight of the evidence in their favor, is almost never understand. In contrast, this ignorance of genetics is one of creationism's most powerful rhetorical tools, as it means that a creationist can spout absurdities regarding genetics and not be caught at it 9 times out of 10. This is demonstrated very well by Theoretically Speaking's post below, which illustrates remarkable ignorance of both evolution and genetics. For example, he correctly notes that we share much DNA with bananas and whales (and with every other organism on the planet), but seems to fail to realize that biologists do, in fact, use that as evidence for our common ancestry with bananas, whales, and indeed all other life forms! Theoretically Speaking also uses completely nonsensical phrasings like "higher genetics" and "more evolved", examples of both the misconception that having more DNA somehow makes an organism "higher" (in reality, how much DNA an organism has has absolutely nothing to do with how complex the organism's morphology will be; many bacteria have vastly longer genomes than humans do), and of the misconception that any organism is "more evolved" than any other (in reality, all extant organisms are equally "evolved", just in different directions).

This shows why it's more difficult to use genetic than fossil evidence to dispel creationist myths: because most creationists, and most non-creationists too, have a much weaker grasp on genetics than on fossils.

Answer 2

First, the people arguing against evolution usually have little to no understanding of science or reality. Second, they are grasping at straws and trying to come up with any argument they can. Remember, most of these people belong to religious cults and are deluded into believing fairy tales, so reasoned, logical arguments are not something they are particularly familar with. They don't seem to understand that the fossil record is only a small part of the evidence supporting evolution and that genetic studies have provided a wealth of evidence.

Answer 3

Fossil evidence and genetic evidence work hand in hand to build a strong case for evolution. I heard it described well recently... The genes of a particular organism show us how the organism progressed. We can see switches that are turned off and those that are turned on. We can see evidence of past infections that link one species to another by way of "left-over" genetic material.

All of this genetic evidence plus the morphological observations from the fossil record give us an even clearer picture of how the life on earth diversified.

Answer 4

Unfortunatle, since evo takes so long, we don't have a good basis for gentetic recovery... thus the necessity for an acurate fossil record (which is quite convincing with ANY study anyway). Of course, chimps and humans share more than 98% identical dna so that arguement is quite compelling (mice and rats only share 97%)

Answer 5

While there is considerable genetic evidence for evolution, most Creationists aren't educated enough to understand it, either for or against.

At least with fossils they can look at the reconstructions and have some idea of what the critters might have looked like.

Answer 6

First of all the fossil record never was a good argument for evolution. It was full of circular reasoning, and assumptions, and as far as genetics. I'll bet you don't even know what you're talking about. Explain to me how genetics is used for evolution? Go ahead take your time, i'm in no hurry......

Answer 7

Creationists are like Holocaust deniers. They will use every tactic, every hole they think they have found. To support their preconceived notions.

It is irrelevant that 99.9% of Biologists say evolution happened and is happening. Or that 99.9% of Historians say the Holocaust occurred.

They will do anything they can to support what they already believe.

Answer 8

No I think its their Sunday rearing that messed them up

Answer 9

Why just use one or the other. I would use both together.