Dicuss some limitations of relying on fossil records to ascertain the history of life on earth?

Question

Evolution

Answer 1

The largest problem is that few areas are ameniable to making a fossil. Most creatures die and deteriorate without a trace. Only the hard tissue and bone are visible, leaving the rest to guesswork. Changes over time are subtle and inconsistent; one species may change rapidly over a couple of centuries in response to an environment change, and then not adapt again for millenia, whereas one next door may not change at all. Different species over time may in fact not be truly different species, but rather a progression over time, but we only see portions of that change, appearing to the outside observer as being different creatures. It is a wildly inconsistent record, with very few representatives.

Answer 2

There can be several reasons.
1. Unless the fossil is an Index fossil (that is, the fossil of an animal or plant, which is short-lived in the history of evolution, is easy to identify and has a wide distribution), it does not pin-point the age.
2. The sediemnt may be reworked and the fossil found in a particular sedimentary hroizon may actually belonged to some other age and has infiltrated to its present site.
3. In many cases fossils are poorly preserved and difficult / impossible to identify.
4. Paleontological age determination is restricted to certain sedimentary horizons and can not help in determining the age of igneous or metamorphic rocks or even coarse clastics. Hence a large part of the earth's crust cannot be dated that way.
5. Life came into existence in the late Precambrians. So anything earlier than this age cannot be dated by fossils.
Nevertheless, it is a very important and successful method of age determination where certain ideal conditions prevail.

Answer 3

The phylogenies of species can be traced through relatively dated geological strata. Changes in morphology due to external influences can sometimes be seen in the bone structure after great periods of time. There are thousands of transitional fossils that show the changes in complexity or morphology between individuals separated by time in the same lineage. Instances where the fossil record is lacking is normally due to the fact that the conditions in which fossils can be made do not occur regularly and actually make fossils very rare. (For instance, for every one fossil, there might have been 100 to 1000 individuals who lived and died around the same time, but only one of them was fossilized). Erosion and other geological factors can destroy rock or earth strata and destroy and of the existing fossils while more strata is built on top, so what may look like sudden change may be due to the missing strata. (This also is the source of a theory called punctuated equilibrium in which some scientists theorize that some species evolve very rapidly and then remain static in morphology for a long period of time.) The fossil record of these changes through time matches up with scientists studies of molecular variance and data and cladistics. In coordination with other fields of evolutionary study, the fossil record makes a very strong case for evolution (though we know evolution occurs every day even right before our eyes in the evolution of strains of bacteria or viruses which develop antibiotic resistance, and other fast reproducing high volume species)

Answer 4

Firstly radio carbon dating is not used for rocks older than about 50,000 years and so is not really useful for dating most rocks with fossils in them . But there are many more radioactive methods which can be used to date the rocks.

So to your question, The fossil record is not complete and it never will be. It is quite rare for a plant or animal to become fossilised. Therefore, the vast majority of organisms disappeared without a trace.

In older rocks the organisms alive at that time did not have hard parts ( eg a skeleton ) and thus when an organism died, usually its soft parts rotted away quickly and if it has no hard parts, there is much less chnace that it will become fossilised.

But there are exceptions of animals with soft parts which became fossilised. Do a search on the "Burgess shale".

Answer 5

Ask yourself how the fossils got there?
We do not see fossils being formed today.(or very rarely.)
When animals die they are eaten and/or rot away very quickly. Yet we see billions of creatures have been buried and preserved.
They have clearly been buried catastrophically. There are even fossils of animals giving birth and in the middle eating another animal.
The fact that the whole earth is covered in sedimentary rocks laid down by water, containing billions of dead creatures buried catastrophically, is indicative of the global flood.

The fossil record is thus not a record of billions of years of alleged evolution. (The fossil record shows stasis of animals not change.) The fossil record is testament to the flood. The depth in the rock does not indicate age, rather mobility. Fish are found nearer the bottom, more mobile creatures higher up, as a rule.

But check it out for yourself. See just how credible the evolutionary explanation is when faced with the evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp

Answer 6

The animal must die in an area of deposition to have a reasonable chance of leaving fossil evidence. He probably has to be buried so that other animals don't eat his remains. Most deposition is marine and therefore land animals typically won't be represented. The animal may decompose and not leave a fossil. After deposition and fossilization, the rock has to be later exposed to be discovered. There are relatively few areas where exposed bedrock is found. Once it is exposed to the surface the bedrock begins to deteriorate and weather ruining the fossil.

Answer 7

The first limitation is your religious orientation, or should I say how strongly you believe in the divine.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, the avalibility of fossils to be preserved in such as state as to provide an abundance of fossils. Conditions have to be right, however mostly conditions are not right for the preservation.
Another major factor is location, if its in conditions in which we just cant get to the rocks to study them. Also the sea floor has something in the region of a lifespan (approx) of 150million years before it is subducted; countless volumes of possible material for harbouring fossils are lost.

Answer 8

some of the fossil records could have been damaged by nature and some info is destroyed. maybe some records could have moved by techtonic plates and missign data in between, etc. Or chipping away of material so things again go missing. or not everything was preserved so you can't really say what survived.

Answer 9

--CARBON DATING: is very limited---

*** ce chap. 7 pp. 96-98 pars. 37-42 “Ape-Men”—What Were They? ***

37 Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?
--38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”53
--39 For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54
--40 Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”55 The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.”56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.
--4 In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”57
--42 When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”58

--ALSO THE FOSSIL RECORD IS EXTREMLY INCOMPLETE:

*** ce chap. 5 pp. 57-59 Letting the Fossil Record Speak ***

***How Complete Is the Record?
--9 However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”7
--10 The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”8
--11 Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.
--12 Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”11 Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”12
--13 After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.”13 The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”14 What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?
--14 What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.
--15 Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”15