Does the fossil record support evolution or doesn't it?

Question

I've heard alot of noise about there being no (or very few) transitional fossils & about different species of hominids co-existing and therefore not being ancestors of one another and I am confused. I understand that micro-evolution(changes within in a given range in a particular species) is observable and repeatable, but macro-evolution (radical changes from one species to another) is not. We can't see it happen in the lab so we can't repeat it, it is a matter of history and therefore only proveable by the fossil record right?

So does the fossil record support it? I'm not trying to sound ignorant, I am not a Biologist, I work in Computer Science so this is not my strong point. I am hoping for intelligent answers.

Answer 1

Absolutely yes. The fossil record supports the theory of evolution *strongly*.

>"I've heard alot of noise about there being no (or very few) transitional fossils."

That is false. The fossil record is *full* of transitional fossils. The following site outlines many many examples beautifully:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

>"& about different species of hominids co-existing and therefore not being ancestors of one another"

That is true ... but it does not disprove evolution. For example, Neanderthal is a hominid species that co-existed with Homo sapiens until it went extinct only about 23,000 years ago. All that means is that two branches co-existed ... neither is the ancestor of the other. It does not disprove evolution in any way.

>"I understand that micro-evolution(changes within in a given range in a particular species) is observable and repeatable, but macro-evolution (radical changes from one species to another) is not."

That is a misrepresentation of what the difference between microevolution and macroevolution means (as far as *Biologists*). Microevolution is about the *study* of evolutionary changes within a species ... which can be *radical* changes. Macroevolution is about the *study* of evolutionary changes at or above the level of the species, and it may or may not be "radical" change. Macroevolution includes *speciation*, the branching of a species into two species ... and this *has* been both demonstrated in the lab, and documented in nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

A second problem with this statement is that, while macroevolution is indeed *observable*, the type of long-term evolution that takes thousands (much less millions) of years is of course not "repeatable." But it is a lie that people are telling you that science can only study "repeatable" events.

The *observations* need to be repeatable, not the events themselves.

As an example of a repeatable *observation*, if I claim that the dating of a fossil puts it at 35 million years old, I need to provide the *repeatable* procedures by which you can verify my observation. (This would include the stratigraphic data in which I found the fossil, a comparisons of other stata around the world, radiometric dating using a specific technique, the specific isotope I used (Potassium, Argon, Uranium, etc.) etc.

But the *events* don't have to be repeatable ... or else the entire fields of astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, meteorology (the study of weather and climate), seismology (the study of earthquakes and what causes them), archaeology, ... heck even the study of history, or criminal forensics (solving a crime event that occurred last week) would all disappear ... as these are all studies of *events* that occurred in the past and are not "repeatable" events.

It is a obvious LIE that creationists will tell you that if a process takes too long to observe directly, then we can assume it does not occur at all. To pick an example as an illustration, if you walk in a redwood tree grove, many of the trees are hundreds, and in some cases *thousands* of years old. No human has ever directly *observed* these trees growing from sapling to their current heights. And no human could every "reproduce" that growth. But it would be ludicrous to conclude from that that scientists have "no evidence" that redwood trees grow from saplings, and therefore that we might as well conclude that the trees were all put there "in their current form."

So yes ... the fossil record supports evolution BIG TIME.

Answer 2

Go to the talkorigins site and read up on the myriad evidential support for what you call macro-evolution. You are wrong. From one species to another has been experimentally shown. You are right about not being a biologist, for your species concept is fuzzy.
The fossil record is rather more complete than creationist would have you believe and we call the transitions, features, of which we have many examples.
Only provable by the fossil record? If that was all we had, think how many people have been convicted truly on less physical evidence. We have so much more at the genetic-molecular level. Even a computer scientist can be educated. Go here.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 3

This is a big talking point for creationists. There are some fossils that have been found that support a transitional animal between two species, such as Archaeopteryx lithographica, a possiblity for reptile/bird evolution.

For other points about evolution, I suggest you look at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/. This is a resource that compiles answers to "creationist" claims as supported by primary research.

Answer 4

I don't have enough energy to tell you all the evidence, but short answer: yes, there is abundant fossil evidence.

Human traits found in non-human hominins (not found in apes or consistantly in any other animals):
Anteriorly placed foramen magnum
Thick molar enamel
Larger posterior teeth over anterior teeth
Valgus angle less than 90 (important for walking)
Tibia perpendicular to ground - walking
Non divergent toes - walking
small arm to leg ratio - less climbing, more walking
Large brain to body ratio (>400 cc)
Locking knee
Spine with multiple curves (walking)
Short and stout pelvis with spooned iliac blades (walking)

These are just a few that I can think of on the spot. These traits are found in many different species, showing that they are hominin trends toward a more human like condition.

Answer 5

The fossil record is far from complete, but it does support evolution. Let's face it; it is very, very hard to become a fossil. You die, and hopefully before scavengers scatter your remains over who knows how far, you get covered in wet mud, your tissue mineralizes, and someone millions of years later just happens to find you.
Despite this, we see many transitional pieces of evidence- the Eohippus to modern Equus, Archeaopteryx with primite "feathers", and whale like ancestors that lived on land.

Answer 6

It is scientifically supported; however, I don't know if it is a matter of fossils or other proof.

Answer 7

No. It is a theory, and only that. You can mate monkeys for 1000 years and you will still only get monkeys, never humans. Believe me, if the scientific community could prove it, they would and it would be all over the news. The Seculars would make sure of it. Anything to disprove Christianity. But they just can't.

EDIT:
You Evo's need to listen to yourselves. The story you are trying to pass off as truth is terribly difficult to believe. Feathers, and whales walking, and fossils and, and, and, I'm worn out. Just give God a chance. If you really seek after Him He will reveal Himself to you. Don't miss out on all that love.