How is evolution supported by fossil evidence?

Question

i don't need anything about whether you believe it or not. that's not what i have to write my paper about.

Answer 1

Oh my goodness, so many misinformed, ignorant people. How do they find themselves in this section?

The theory of biological evolution is that populations change in their allele frequency over time, mostly through natural selection. Shifts in those allele frequencies can result in physiological shifts within the population over time, to the extent that we call them separate species.

Representatives of the older populations of animals found in the fossil record. Not every individual organism is fossilized, however, so the fossil record will never be 'complete'. It doesn't have to be.

According to the theory of evolution, relatively recent populations of organisms would be most similar to living species. Radical shifts in the population's physical characteristics would have taken place longer ago in the past.

This is supported by the fossil record. I.e. modern dog, wolf and coyote fossils are all found in relatively recent Pleistocene deposits. Older deposits do not show these species.

According to the theory of evolution, where there are two modern populations of organisms that are very similar, but distinct on a species level, at some time in the past, these species would have had a common ancestor with physical traits common to both of the modern species, and traits ancestral to the traits possessed by the modern species.

This is supported by the fossil record. I.e. Although the modern Canis species are not in Pliocene deposits, there are canids that have characters similar to those in all three modern species.


According to the theory of evolution, more distantly related modern species which still share a number of physical characteristics also would share a common ancestor, and the common traits would be seen in that common ancestor, as well as in the other descendant groups.

The fossil record supports this. I.e. Back in the Miocene, there were critters known as bear-dogs that have characteristics similar to those possessed by bears, but also showing features that were inherited only by dogs.

According to the theory of evolution, the farther apart modern species are, the farther back their common ancestor would be.

This is supported by the fossil record. I.e. Eocene age fissiped predators that looked like cat-weasel-bear-dogs, or earlier miacids that also showed characters that were shared with creodonts. This also goes back to the earliest eutherian mammals in the Cretaceous, and the earliest mammals in the Triassic, and the earliest reptiles, and the earliest amphibians, and back to the earliest fish and the first known chordates way, way back in the Cambrian sea 580 million years ago.

The chronological distribution and anatomical characters of every fossil ever found has supported the theory of evolution, while none have ever been found which cannot be explained in light of evolution.

The geographical distribution of fossils also supports evolution, in that while modern species might be discontiguous in distribution, their fossil distribution can explain why they are currently found where they are, especially when corellated with the changing geography of the Earth as revealed through the study of plate tectonics. So the fact that we find jaguars in South America, while the closely related leopard is only found in Asia and Africa is less perplexing when you find that during the Pleistocene their ranges and populations overlapped in North America.

The fact that you find only one or two species of porcupine, opossum, or armadillo in North America, while they are far more diverse in South America, and fossils of rabbits, mice, foxes, tapirs and other South American critters are not found before 2 million years ago makes more sense when you discover that North and South America did not meet until the Pliocene, about 2 million years ago.

There are many hundreds of thousands of other pieces of fossil evidence that support evolution, but those are all I have time for now.

Answer 2

Finding fossils cannot prove evolution, but it can disprove it.

The truth is that they find similarities in fossils, and think that that would prove that there were common ancestors. However, that is a very weak conclusion. It is the best conclusion, however, that can be made by those who feel that there is no supernatural power (which is a question that science cannot approach).

Answer 3

Fossils are preserved evidence of previous life. They indicate that early forms could have been modified to create current species. They also show evidence of vestigial structures, which are present in both ancient and current species, although they are usually useless in current species. Most importantly, they suggest common ancestry.

Answer 4

Dinosaurs lived. Adam and Eve is a myth to teach you not to trust talking snakes and not to steal apples because you will have hell to pay if you don't follow the rules.

Only a class one idiot would dispute the fossil record. Or you are God and know that you created everything and scattered all those bones around to confuse the hell out us.

Answer 5

it is apparent through fossils that many animals share things very closely in common. for instance, horses today vs. horses of the pliestocene, although there are minute differences, much of the physical structure is the same. simply, its suggests a common ancestor

Answer 6

the fact that many very different animals have similar bone structures indicates common ancestry, for instance human arms bone structure resembles that of a birds even tho they are very different animals

Answer 7

How is it not? Watch the History, Discovery, and National Geographic Channels.

Answer 8

its not theres not one pice of solid evedence that supports it.
If evolution wrere true then we would find evedence in fossils of the animals cahnging over time, but the onley thing the scientist come up with is finding two similar spicies from two diffrent times and say that this first spicies must have turned into the seconed spicies, but if that were true then their would be literly millions of (missing links) not just one like we come to belive. Se if monkeys evolved into humans like people want you to belive there would be millions of missing links the theroy that we slowley evolved over time would make us constanly changing in fossils. And if every thing is evolving then there would be no spicies really, every thing would be changing slowley from the begining of life, so the theroy would make a little more sence if we found the spicies changing over time into another spicies and then that spicies changing into another and so on and so forth, but that is not happening. So there

Answer 9

You should probably just start from here. You probably didn't want the can of worms you unintentionally opened.

Answer 10

its not, evolution is the dumbest thing i have ever heard if it were true then we should still be evolving, and all species should be able to breed together but they cant so there ya go