What are some problems encountered when using the fossil record to support the claims of evolution?

Question

Whoa there nostradamas - I never said anything about belief in god or whatever - reel it in... no need to get defensive...

Answer 1

The problems are not to do with the fossil record, which is much as we would expect, and so fits well with the theory's predictions.

The problems are all to do with the denial and deceit of people who wish not to accept evolution and the wealth of evidence supporting it, primarily (if not exclusively) for religious reasons.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is matched only by the unwillingness of religious fundamentalists to accept the vast and comprehensive evidence that we were not made out of mud by whichever magic man they think made the world!

Answer 2

1. The process of formation of fossils is exceedingly rare and difficult.

2. Some environments don't fossilize bones well at all.

3. Soft-bodied organisms don't leave much fossils at all.

4. Sometimes evolution happens faster than the fossil record can capture it.

Sometimes all of these problems come into play ... such as the relatively rapid evolution of many new hard-bodied phyla known as the "Cambrian explosion." (Although by "rapid" or "explosion", it's important to note that this occurred over the course of 80 *million* years ... that's "rapid" by geological standards ... but hardly an "explosion" in human terms.)

Given all this, it is lucky that we find fossils *at all*.

But we do. Lots of them. And these fossils are *all* found in the right layers, in the right depths, with the layer correlating beautifully with other dating techniques (like radiometric dating), with the right progression of structures. Tracing all the way back to when bodies first started having hard parts that would fossilize (and even further ... we still find fossil signs of early bacteria!)

And nothing out of place. No trilobites in the Jurassic layers, no dinosaurs in the Permian.

But it's also important to note that the fossil record is not the *only* evidence in support of evolution ... or even the strongest. If not a single fossil had ever been found, the DNA evidence *ALONE* is incredibly powerful evidence of common ancestry between any group of species, or indeed between any two forms of life on the planet.

And when added to other kinds of evidence (genes, proteins, morphology, embryology, atavisms, biogeography, etc. etc.), evolution emerges as one of the strongest theories in the history of science.

In other words ... evidence from *living* organisms is enough to establish evolutionary ancestry. Fossils just add *additional* data from *extinct* organisms that really fills in a lot of the details about specific progressions.

Answer 3

To answer your question respectfully, besides the things people have pointed out with the formation of fossils, it is the lack of finding what is termed "a common ancestor" for any given pair of species.

A common ancestor (also known as the missing link) is the last shared ancestor of any 2 species. This common ancestor is predicted to exist by the Theory of Natural Selection. However, there has never been a true missing link found. Part of the reason is the gaps in fossilization, another reason is that the criteria used to determine a missing link is highly stringent and not necessarily accurate. But that is science for you, perfection to the point of idiocrasy at times, but that is what science is supposed to be.

Answer 4

Identifying the age of the fossil accurately. Evolution is absolutely not a claim. If you don't believe in evolution then your educational experience has seriously failed you. And trust me, accepting evolution in no way denies the existence of a supreme being.

Answer 5

Well, the only problem is that we don't have a complete fossil record to shoe every step of evolution. But that is to be expected.