The most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.
2007-04-30 13:22:26 · 17 answers · asked by cascio_ben 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
One doesn't need a fossil record to prove evolution.
Next time you're at the hospital, ask for 1950 antibiotics.
ty
2007-04-30 13:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
The fossil record isn't needed. Evolution is supported without fossils. The fossils just help scientists to try and figure out how evolution has worked to specifically make all the species. That fossil record is incomplete, therefor the don't know all the ancestors to the species. But they certainly know the didn't just appear one day.
2007-05-01 10:58:10 · answer #2 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Proof only exists in formal mathematics. In the real world, we only have the ability to decide which of two hypotheses is better supported by the evidence.
The evidence from fossil record is 100% consistent with the theory of evolution. The biblical story of creation is contradicted by the fossil record.
However, you are also wrong to claim that the fossil record is the most popular source of evidence used today by researchers. Today, the most heavily used source of evidence comes from DNA/RNA sequencing.
Finally, you are also wrong to imply that evolution has not been observed. Evolution of new species has been observed in modern times.
2007-04-30 20:48:08 · answer #3 · answered by Jim L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence." No. This means that extrapolations are made based on all available evidence. They may not be perfect, but they are very, very, very close.
"He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory." No. I won't even speak to whether or not he discredits himself, because it's irrelevant. One scientist does not discredit an entire theory this way, let alone his profession. That's akin to saying that because some Catholic priests are child molesters, all clergy are child molesters. Or like saying that because one Christian misinterprets Encyclopedia Britanica articles, all Christians are illiterate.
2007-04-30 20:31:49 · answer #4 · answered by RabidBunyip 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it's incomplete. It's hard to fossilize something and we haven't dug up every piece of land everywhere. But we don't need a mother-daughter chain from the first bacteria to us to know that we are right, no more than every single second of a murder's night must be accounted for if he were caught on camera doing the deed.
2007-04-30 20:35:39 · answer #5 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And they will never find the transitional fossils because there never was any evoluton.
And to those of you who don't know the difference between "evolution", and survival of the fittest, I will try to explain it to you.
When you get a flu shot, the shot will be innefective the following year. Is that because the influenza virus evolves?
NO! There are thousands if not millions of variations of the influena. The shot that you get this year is for a specific strain. The strain next year will be a different variation. One strain does not evolve into another. All the strains are in existance at the same time. When one strain is wiped out, another becomes dominant. It is the survival of the fittest. THERE IS NO EVOLUTION.
2007-04-30 20:51:03 · answer #6 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is a variety of information backing evolution, not just fossils. Take a look at embryology, DNA, analogous structures, vestigial structures, mitochondria and chloroplasts, and bacteria and viruses that are constantly becoming immune to one antibiotic/vaccine or another, etc. Where's your evidence of God? (The Bible doesn't count.)
2007-04-30 20:54:55 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are other kinds of evidence besides a fossil record. Get with the program.
2007-04-30 20:27:44 · answer #8 · answered by Julia Sugarbaker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
See, a while back they discovered a neat little thing called "genetics" that shows how the phenotypical evidence presented by fossils is incredibly complemented by genetics.
2007-04-30 20:26:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you really think the Bible proves creation with NO evidence?
And I know Yahoo had something to say about the all caps words---it's not nice to yell.
2007-04-30 20:27:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋