1

Topics: Fossil Evidence of Evolution?

Engraving from William Smith’s 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.

Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

1

Evolution is a lie. There are not enough fossils to fill in the gaps. See scientist lie but Numbers don"t lie !

1

This is just a speculation and one more piece in the jigsaw. You miss the other fossils that show the linear progression of human evolution. You say there is a gap in the fossil records and then dismiss a possible filler. They will now go back and look again. That"s science.

1

Riddle me this Ozzie ? If evolution was true and it took 65 million years to evolve we should have at least 65 million transition fossils today. We should be just tripping over them. Where are they ? See Numbers don"t lie, Just the people pushing evolution.

1

The only secular scientists moving away from evolution are teachers in Turkey because that"s a religious theocracy. Sorry the numerous missing link fossils from hundreds, if not thousands, of species isn"t good enough for you. Not one should call design a fact, b/c it"s lunacy.

1

Err, wrong. It means they’ve been around for 80 million years and have changed very little from an evolutionary standpoint. Doesn’t make dating methods incorrect. That’s why they’re referred to as “living fossils”. Evolution is after all survival of the fittest.

1

Not true. All fossils fit the theory of evolution. You"ve been misinformed

1

And all it would take to disprove evolution would be to have just one of those skulls and fossils be dated out of sequence. None have, so far.

1

An obvious point. Even Darwin himself stated there must be countless fossils of each and every stage in evolution and that his theory could not be accepted as fact without such evidence.

1

The absence of transitional fossils have always been the achilles heel of the evolution theory. What proof do they have?

1

No need fossils - creator knows creation

1

Here dating of fossils evolution

Engraving from William Smith’s 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.

Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

1

If evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model.

1

Not at all. It is a biased interpretation meant to prop up evolution. Also you have no transition fossils after that either. TOE is debunked and bankrupt