Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Riverwalker]

A thing is evidence of itself. Fossils prove there are fossils, but that is all they do. If you go any further than the evidence allows, then you have left the realm on proof, and entered the fantasy world of Surmisal. Trying to explain a theory by leaping from one fact to supposition is like diving into a pool with no water. It might be fun ...for a little bit

Edited February 3, 2021 by Riverwalker

[Tristen]

Hello Riverwalker,

My first question would be to ask how you are defining “evolution”? The term “evolution” can be used to mean a range of things including; the generation of life from non-life (a.k.a. “the General Theory of Evolution”), changes in allele frequency in a given population, any genetic or phenotypic change to a given population, Natural Selection, Common Ancestry, mutations, adaptations, speciations etc. etc.

As a Biblical (sometimes called 'young earth') creationist myself, the only one of these I outrightly contest (and the only one that directly conflicts with the Bible) is Common Ancestry. By every other definition, I am also an evolutionist. That is to say that I find the term “evolution” to be too highly equivocal to be useful.

I would secondly define the term “evidence” as fact(s) interpreted to support a particular conclusion (i.e. as “evidence” of that conclusion). By this definition, the answer is yes – the fossil evidence can be interpreted to support a conclusion of “evolution” - even Common Ancestry.

It would, however, be important to understand that the conclusion itself is not a fact (or observation). As you suggested, the only facts are the fossils themselves. One might claim that observed similarity between fossils is a fact, along with the geological location and composition of the fossils.

However, any stories about how the fossils might be related to each other through time are just that – stories (or models). To interpret the facts to fit a particular story requires that we first make broad assumptions regarding the ultimate nature of reality. For example, most secularists start the interpretation process making the uniformitarian assumption – i.e. that all geological processes have always proceeded at the same rate we witness them today. That assumption is a tenet of secular faith.

To be fair, the only way to investigate the past is to make such faith assumptions. So I would not criticise the method itself. But the method does need to be understood in its proper context - so that we can attribute the right amounts of confidence to past claims. At the end of the day, all stories of the past can only generate anecdotal confidence - not scientific confidence. Secularists often try and conflate the two (as all 'science') - so as to exaggerate confidence in their preferred story.

 

[Paul James]

1 hour ago, Riverwalker said:

A thing is evidence of itself. Fossils prove there are fossils, but that is all they do. If you go any further than the evidence allows, then you have left the realm on proof, and entered the fantasy world of Surmisal. Trying to explain a theory by leaping from one fact to supposition is like diving into a pool with no water. It might be fun ...for a little bit

The nature and form of the fossils are evidence of Noah's world-wide Flood.

[Justin Adams]

1 hour ago, Riverwalker said:

A thing is evidence of itself. Fossils prove there are fossils, but that is all they do. If you go any further than the evidence allows, then you have left the realm on proof, and entered the fantasy world of Surmisal. Trying to explain a theory by leaping from one fact to supposition is like diving into a pool with no water. It might be fun ...for a little bit

"So far so good", said the jumper as he passed the 5th floor on the way down...

[The Barbarian]

On 2/3/2021 at 12:52 AM, Tristen said:

My first question would be to ask how you are defining “

evolution”? The term “evolution” can be used to mean a range of things including; the generation of life from non-life (a.k.a. “the General Theory of Evolution”)

No,that's wrong.   The theory of evolution is not about the way life began.   Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things.    Evolutionary theory assumes living things began somehow, and describes how populations of them change over time.

 

Quote

changes in allele frequency in a given population,

 

That's the scientific definition.

 

Quote

any genetic or phenotypic change to a given population

 

Another way of saying "change in allele frequency."    And phenotypic changes may not be due to evolution, but to inherent adaptability, such as tanning or changes in height due to better health care or nutrition

 

Quote

Natural Selection,

 

Natural selection is a driver of evolution, not evolution.   It's part of Darwin's theory, but it's not evolution.

 

Quote

Common Ancestry,

 

Common ancestry is a consequence of evolution, not evolution.

 

Quote

mutations,

 

Mutation is another driver of evolution.

 

Quote

adaptations,

 

Genetic adaptations are evolution, usually microevolution.

 

Quote

speciations

 

That's macroevolution, which is essentially the same as microevolution.

 

Quote

As a Biblical (sometimes called '

young earth') creationist myself, the only one of these I outrightly contest (and the only one that directly conflicts with the Bible) is Common Ancestry.

 

Most YE creationists now admit a limited amount of common ancestry.   Normally, they now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families (or even farther) evolve from other species.

 

Quote

By every other definition, I am also an

evolutionist. That is to say that I find the term “evolution” to be too highly equivocal to be useful.

 

The creationist definition is.   However, the scientific term is very precise and useful.

 

Quote

I would secondly define the term “

evidence” as fact(s) interpreted to support a particular conclusion (i.e. as “evidence” of that conclusion). By this definition, the answer is yes – the fossil evidence can be interpreted to support a conclusion of “evolution” - even Common Ancestry.

 

In fact, knowledgeable creationists say that the numerous transitional fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 As Dr. Kurt Wise admits, there is no reasonable way to explain the existence of these transitions in a creationist model.   However, the suggests that such an explanation might be found in the future.

 

Quote

However, any stories about how the fossils might be related to each other through time are just that – stories (or models). To interpret the facts to fit a particular story requires that we first make broad assumptions regarding the ultimate nature of reality. For example, most secularists start the interpretation process making the uniformitarian assumption – i.e. that all geological processes have always proceeded at the same rate we witness them today.

 

No.  That's incorrect.  Even Lyell wrote about catastrophic changes that were quite rapid, and also noted that gradual processes proceed at varying rates.    The assumption that uniformitarian means "always at the same rate" is a tenet of creationism.    But it's wrong.

 

Quote

To be fair, the only way to investigate the past is to make such faith assumptions.

 

That's wrong, too.   For example, we can learn about rates of sedimentation by looking at the layers of rock and finding the ages of each layer by various methods.   Lake varves are a particularly useful method, because they form two layers per year, a dark layer and a light layer.   It was by ancient varves that carbon-14 dating was more accurately calibrated.    This kind of rigorous analysis is the way we know about rates of change.  

The discovery of the mechanism for continental drift was by careful scientific analysis of the evidence.

"Anecdotal" dosesn't mean what you seem to think it means.   

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

And surprisingly, a single mutation is capable of turning fins to limbs.   Lots of fish have bones in their fins.   But the needed step is to have bones linked together, end to end.    This requires not only new bones, but new muscles, joints, connective tissue, and nerves.   Seems impossible for that many mutations to come together at once, doesn't it? 

Turns out, they don't have to:

“It was a little bit unbelievable that just one mutation was able to create completely new bones and joints,” said Dr M Brent Hawkins, the lead author of the study.

Analysis revealed that mutations in either of two genes, vv2 and waslb, can independently cause this change.

“You didn’t need to have a mutation in the muscle gene, a joint gene, and in the bone gene; the system is coordinated such that whatever our change is, it’s able to push all these things together in unison,” said senior author Dr Matthew Harris, associate professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and orthopaedics at Boston Children’s Hospital.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/a-single-genetic-change-turned-a-fishs-fins-into-limbs/

The mutation used the same genes that are responsible for forming our forearms.

Edited February 7, 2021 by The Barbarian

[Eternally Gratefull]

As stated, Fossils are proof of the catastrophic flood of Noah.

[BeyondET]

On 2/7/2021 at 10:05 AM, The Barbarian said:

And surprisingly, a single mutation is capable of turning fins to limbs.   Lots of fish have bones in their fins.   But the needed step is to have bones linked together, end to end.    This requires not only new bones, but new muscles, joints, connective tissue, and nerves.   Seems impossible for that many mutations to come together at once, doesn't it? 

Doesn’t seem impossible at all, the process of reconstruction is readily seen in nature today. it’s a process called metamorphosis a caterpillar reconstructs it’s entire body into a flying butterfly, amazing feat. that process which is kind of rare now in nature, could of been the main process in the beginning a new planet the life metamorphosing like crazy.

[The Barbarian]

21 hours ago, Eternally Gratefull said:

As stated, Fossils are proof of the catastrophic flood of Noah.

Since many fossils are inconsistent with a flood, they would be a proof against a global flood.   However, some fossils would be consistent with a flood of limited extent. Actually, many, many such floods.

 

[Sparks]

Even if Darwinian Evolution were true (it's not), fossils still would not be evidence for it.  Fossils are simply evidence that something has died and it's body was left under the right conditions to make a fossil. 

There was an old man who died and was buried, and 14 years later they dug out the grave to bury his wife beside him.  When they reached the crypt, it was full of water, so they pulled the man's coffin out, and looked inside and he had become a fossil.   Water had been gently flowing through the crypt for some time, but it had been no more than 14 years to make him a fossil.

People have found all kinds of things fossilized, like a cowboy boot with a foot still in it.  So, 4200 years ago in a great flood, there would be no problem in the creation of all kinds of fossils.  Whatever was on earth would have died and been under layers of mud, and in the perfect conditions to become a fossil.  

If you think it takes 'billions of years' to make a fossil, consider it takes just 24 hours to make a fossil in a laboratory.  If you think that the Geologic Column is real, consider the alleged layer order only exists in text books, where it is an artist rendering. Darwinian Evolution is a joke.

You can make your own Geologic Column in seconds in your own kitchen.  Hydrologic sorting occurs in a glass jar when you shake it, as seen below.  Just add dirt, and water.  The agitation will automatically sort the contents every time you shake it and leave the jar on the kitchen counter.   The Geologic Column is another joke.