Back to the "Fifteen Questions" for two more today, both dealing in one way or another with fossils. The question of support for evolution in the fossil record is one of the segments of evolution that I am most interested in, especially refuting the oft-repeated canard that there are no transitional fossils, a lie if there ever was one. Here they are:
Q9: Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains...
The creationists appears to be blind as well as deaf it seems; we do not have "millions" of transitional fossils, but we have many, enough to demonstrate the validity of evolution. The creationist once again thinks that evolution hasn't changed since Darwin wrote The Origin; what was a problem for Darwin is no longer a problem. The discovery of Archaeopteryx soon after the publication of Darwin's book in 1859 was one of the first corroborating pieces of fossil evidence, and the case has only grown stronger since. From Australopithecus to Tiktaalik, from ancestral horses to ancestral whales to the vibrant series of winged dinosaurs now being discovered, the fossil record keeps providing transitional fossils to support evolution, all of which must be denied by creationists as legitimate, whether they call Archaeopteryx a fraud, Neandertals as just old men crippled with arthritis or "Lucy" as a purposely cobbled-together forgery. But they're wrong, and their denials hardly scratch the surface of the many transitional forms. Present a creationist with "just one transitional fossil" and they'll deny it is transitional. They've been doing it for years and seem bent on continuing to do so. Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters is the best book on the subject, not only detailing numerous transitional forms but providing a brief history of the creationist movement and sound, geological evidence that Noah's Ark could never have happened...all from a legitimate, credentialed paleontologist at Occidental College. That single volume, a very readable one, provides all the evidence you need to answer creationist babble on the Flood and the fossil record.
Q10: How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
This is easy enough to answer; they don't need to change. They are well-enough adapted to their environment that further evolution is unneeded, though it will continue to occur to some extent at the genetic level. Take sharks for instance; they have been around for "hundreds of millions of years" virtually unchanged. They are a top predator, currently, and they have no need to change (though again, some minor changes). This is my return question to creationists; if the "supposed" hundreds of millions of years didn't exist, then how do you propose fitting all of the known fossil species into a short, six thousand year time frame? Surely that would make for a crowded biosphere with all those creatures running around at the same time, Tyrannosaurus and mammoths and sabertooths and Allosaurus and Dimetrodon and Australopithecus ...you get the point. This surely is a problem for creationists...at least until the Flood cleaned the slate, right?
That's it for today; next on the slate are questions about the origins of morality and evolutionary "just-so" stories among other topics. But we're almost to the end of the questions. How about Fifteen Questions for creationists next?
Q9: Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains...
The creationists appears to be blind as well as deaf it seems; we do not have "millions" of transitional fossils, but we have many, enough to demonstrate the validity of evolution. The creationist once again thinks that evolution hasn't changed since Darwin wrote The Origin; what was a problem for Darwin is no longer a problem. The discovery of Archaeopteryx soon after the publication of Darwin's book in 1859 was one of the first corroborating pieces of fossil evidence, and the case has only grown stronger since. From Australopithecus to Tiktaalik, from ancestral horses to ancestral whales to the vibrant series of winged dinosaurs now being discovered, the fossil record keeps providing transitional fossils to support evolution, all of which must be denied by creationists as legitimate, whether they call Archaeopteryx a fraud, Neandertals as just old men crippled with arthritis or "Lucy" as a purposely cobbled-together forgery. But they're wrong, and their denials hardly scratch the surface of the many transitional forms. Present a creationist with "just one transitional fossil" and they'll deny it is transitional. They've been doing it for years and seem bent on continuing to do so. Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters is the best book on the subject, not only detailing numerous transitional forms but providing a brief history of the creationist movement and sound, geological evidence that Noah's Ark could never have happened...all from a legitimate, credentialed paleontologist at Occidental College. That single volume, a very readable one, provides all the evidence you need to answer creationist babble on the Flood and the fossil record.
Q10: How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
This is easy enough to answer; they don't need to change. They are well-enough adapted to their environment that further evolution is unneeded, though it will continue to occur to some extent at the genetic level. Take sharks for instance; they have been around for "hundreds of millions of years" virtually unchanged. They are a top predator, currently, and they have no need to change (though again, some minor changes). This is my return question to creationists; if the "supposed" hundreds of millions of years didn't exist, then how do you propose fitting all of the known fossil species into a short, six thousand year time frame? Surely that would make for a crowded biosphere with all those creatures running around at the same time, Tyrannosaurus and mammoths and sabertooths and Allosaurus and Dimetrodon and Australopithecus ...you get the point. This surely is a problem for creationists...at least until the Flood cleaned the slate, right?
That's it for today; next on the slate are questions about the origins of morality and evolutionary "just-so" stories among other topics. But we're almost to the end of the questions. How about Fifteen Questions for creationists next?
I'm glad you're doing this.
ReplyDelete