Are fossils evidence for evolution?

Question

Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, wrote in 1999: “The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” Although Gee is a believer in Darwin’s theory, he acknowledged that one must assume the truth of the theory when studying human origins, because by its very nature the fossil record cannot corroborate it. Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Also there is the lack of high level models for macro evolution. Some proposes Theoretical Genetics, but it applies to micro evolution only. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/169/1/1
Known mechanisms turn on/off complex information *already available*: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

Thanks 666666z: Of course, the idea behind evolution is exactly as you say: the mechanisms of micro evolution are believed to generalize to macro evolution. In fact, some evolutionists, not all of them, don't even want to consider a distinction between micro and macro evolution. The problem with that belief is that theoretical genetics has been developed for micro evolution and has explicitly excluded long range evolution from its domain of applications. As I said, the known mechanisms only turn on/off already available information. Such mechanisms cannot explain long range macro evolution. We would need mechanisms that somehow extract information from the environment and store it in *new* genes. New information must be added to the bank of genes. The vague idea is that it occurs through random mutation + gene drift + natural selection + gene flow, but no model is known. Again, theoretical genetics is explicitly restricted to micro evolution.

Scott M: I was careful to read many debates around Dr Gee's statements before I decided to post my question. I knew that they were not part of an argument to reject evolution. That's even better because it suggests that he was not biased toward creationism. Briefly, Dr. Gee prefers to focus on cladistics which makes sense in an evolution context. Nevertheless, his statements are written in the context of the study of evolution, so are not taken out of context, stand by themselves and are non ambiguous.

secretsauce: I am convinced that Dr. Gee must have received a lot of pressure from his colleagues and certainly, since he is an evolutionists, he agreed to make sure not to support the non evolutionist view. As I said, I already read on this issue, and it is clear that Dr. Gee, at the least at the time, really meant what the sentences that he wrote clearly mean. Well, maybe he exaggerated when he wrote "bed time stories", but the main point is non ambiguous. Besides, I know their exact context and it doesn't affect their natural meaning. The context makes clear that Dr. Gee accepts evolution, but it is a different issue. Still, I will check your references and see if they contain anything new interesting points on the issue.

I read Dr Gee's reply, and he only explained again that the fact that fossils aren't evidence for ancestry. I must admit that it has nothing to do for the real point that I am concerned about, which is the gap between the actual fossils and what we infer from them (for example, we have many bones and we assume that they come from the same animal, etc.).

Hello jonmcn49. I think you are taking it too seriously. Hey we are human beings!

Answer 1

abc ... please tell me you have not succumbed to quote mining!

Henry Gee is a constant target of quote mining (picking out quotes out of context) ... and this specific quote is no exception. It is leaving out a lot of what Gee actually said! Gee has in fact felt compelled to speak out against the twisting of his words.

Please read the following (which features the exact quote you are talking about):
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/04/wittlessly-quote-mining.html

Answer 2

Henry is speaking nonsense if he is talking about fossils other than humans. We know the age of fossils and can accurately track with absolute certainty the changes in many animals. It is also absolutely certain that animals were totally different 100 million years ago. That is proof of evolution because the definition is change over time. We understand the mechanism of DNA replication well enough to understand speciation at the molecular level. We see how species radiated from a common ancestor and that is proven by the fossil record. It makes the argument of lack of macro evolution obsolete and proven to be false.

There is a lack of sufficient numbers of hominid fossils to absolutely conclude exactly which if any fossils are human ancestors. The genetic and other data makes that argument not particularly relevant. During Darwin's time they were looking for a missing link to verify his theory. It was a fossil that had ape and human characteristics. Today we have so many varieties that meet that criteria that it is difficult to say which are the actual ancestors. We do have genetic data that confirms neanderthal as a close relative and they are very similar to heidlebergensis so it is almost certain that they are very close relatives. It also makes it highly likely that we descended from at least some of the fossil hominids.

It is silly to say we can't prove evolution because of the relative lack or gaps in a few species. Some are very complete examples. It is as silly as saying we are not animals or primates.

Answer 3

There are so many Discovery channel videos of that. Look up "Lucy fossil," and that's an early hominid, which gave rise to humans. There are also many different fossils of ancient bugs that became the bugs we have today, as well as birds. There are also fossils of saber-tooth tigers, which gave rise to the tigers today. You can show your mom all of these pictures. However, I have another piece of advice.. Many adults will have their minds set in stone. Even if they might realize that you're right, they might not say it outloud and keep their pride, and still say that you're wrong. So, I hope you don't fret too much about it. Try to let it go, and at the end of the day, just know that you're the bigger, more informed person here.

Answer 4

> Are fossils evidence for evolution?
Not by themselves, no. Taken with what we have learned from
molecular biology (mutations, chromosomal events, viral lysogeny),
population biology (migration/gene flow, isolation, selection),
selective breeding, observations made on semi-isolated archipelagoes and islands,
fossils are part of the evidence package.
They tend to support, and do not disprove, macroevolution.

Yes, it's true that we can't identify direct lineal ancestors and distinguish them from "also-ran" "cousin" species.

> the same validity as a bedtime story
Looks like Gee is full of cr-ppy rhetoric. Sorry, Gee, U SUKK. It's more than a bedtime story. While there isn't enough evidence to "convict" in a "criminal trial," there certainly is enough evidence -- "preponderance" -- to win a civil case. And -- the glove fits.

Answer 5

This will be the last time I answer you. secretsause suspects you of quote mining; I accuse you of it. Gee is a proponent of facilitated variation. You do know what the theory facilitated variation is, don't you? Those supporting this theory think they have many answers to questions in evolution and have been quote-mined repeatedly, just as Stephen Jay Gould was when he came up with " punctuated equilibrium. " Creationists latched on to quotes out of context he made to show that a famous scientist was in disagreement with evolutionary theory. We do not care for arguments from authority anyway.
Please do not e-mail me again either.

Answer 6

I have a sister who became a fundamentalist Christian who believes that fossils where placed in the earth by God to test our faith. There are fossils that cross several intervals, she claimed. Fossils only mean what the individual person believes and how they choose to interpret them. Same goes for anything in life. How can I know that your existance is real and not just because that you and everthing around me only exists because I think it's there. There is no way to "prove" it scientifically, but I have faith that you all exist and will continue to exist after I have expired.

Answer 7

The fossil record provides abundant evidence for common descent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Dr. Gee's argument is that determining *direct* ancestry from fossils is impossible, not that the fossils do not support the theory of common descent.

http://www.ncsewb.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp

(Pay particular attention to point 3. Also 4.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Answer 8

yes fossils are evidence of evolution. By fossils you can see how natural selection favorite and certain type of that species she many species are full of diversity. The one that if best suited for the enviornment will be the one that evolves.

Answer 9

According to scientists, all macro evolution is, is a lot of micro evolution happening over a relatively short time period.

Answer 10

Yes

and will your avatar get more efficient eating habits, to promote the survival of its species?