A Thought on Evolution

**Brother of Yeshua** · #1 (**permalink**) 10-31-2007, 09:51 PM

One of the most contested points in evolution is the lack of "intermediaries" in the fossil record.

I think what finer point is missing from this is that somehow, there should be a record of extinct species for everything that has ever existed.

Do people realize how ludicrous of an expectation that is?

Look at the sparse number of fossils that have actually been discovered, when you consider how large some populations had to of been.

What is lacked is the understanding that current animals are not distant relatives, though some like sharks and alligators/crocodiles have been around for ages. They are our modern day cousins in the biosphere. They too have taken subtle branches along the way. Just as their is a progression to the modern human, there is progression to the other modern animals, and there will continue to be shifts. My guess is if we compared statistics of an animal from 2007 to one from 1907, there would be slight anomalies becoming more apparent in the 100 year difference.

These slight anomalies (micro-evolution/adaptation, which has been proven in our lifetime. Look at the peppered moth or the arctic hare from your 5th grade science book) build up over time to create macro-evolutions (new species threshold).

So yeah there aren't fossils for every blasted creature that's ever walked the face of this planet. If there is life, there is a biosphere, and most of the biosphere gets recycled back into itself. It is seldom that segments of time are frozen by fossilization. The conditions are very specific for such an event to happen.

SpicedSugar · 10-31-2007, 09:53 PM

Plus, how could we even get that record. if we only know about 1% of all species that ever existed?

**Ristaron** · 11-01-2007, 12:15 AM

Thank you, Brother, I have been saying that to every ignorant bastard who brings up "gaps" in the fossil record. Do they not realize that conditions for fossilization are extremely rare? Even today we are destroying grave-sites that would yield future anthropologists a wealth of information, even in North America (hello, theme parks on Aboriginal sacred ground? They don't fornicate there, they bury their dead there). We didn't always have such elaborate rituals presiding over the death of someone, for most of early human history we probably didn't bury our dead. Why would we assume that predecessors of apes and chimps, which also don't bury their dead, would do so?

Abrasax · 11-01-2007, 10:53 AM

This is a very good idea....I've thought of similiar things. What are the chances a fossil has survived long enough for us to notic major differences? This is an almost unrealistic expectation....

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-01-2007, 10:20 PM

This article on cat DNA seemed relevent.

Click Here

**Ristaron** · 11-01-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

This article on cat DNA seemed relevent.

Click Here

Most awesome article ever. I was actually rather unaware that cats were so genetically similar to humans...

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-02-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

Most awesome article ever. I was actually rather unaware that cats were so genetically similar to humans...

And the fact that us and cats got the "good genome order" before it got all shuffled around.

Curiouser and curiouser....

**Opunaya** · 11-02-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

Thank you, Brother, I have been saying that to every ignorant bastard who brings up "gaps" in the fossil record. Do they not realize that conditions for fossilization are extremely rare? Even today we are destroying grave-sites that would yield future anthropologists a wealth of information, even in North America (hello, theme parks on Aboriginal sacred ground? They don't fornicate there, they bury their dead there). We didn't always have such elaborate rituals presiding over the death of someone, for most of early human history we probably didn't bury our dead. Why would we assume that predecessors of apes and chimps, which also don't bury their dead, would do so?

Yeah, I believe in some European cultures (I'm not quite sure anymore), they'd leave their dead in the forest, usually laying down or propped up against a tree or something, so the dead could make their own way? I don't remember exactly...and then there was the whole leaving fruit on their chest that represented sin, and a "sin-eater" would come along and eat the fruit, taking the decease's sin into themselves. Also, even in early Christian culture, they used massive caves as tombs, didn't they? where moisture and other things could easily leak through. Burying has probably only been going on in certain parts of the world for a few thousand years.

Static · 11-02-2007, 07:35 PM

hey, howbout the fact that we have an appendix? doesn't that support evolution?

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-02-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static

hey, howbout the fact that we have an appendix? doesn't that support evolution?

The only way that could support evolution is if we surveyed different generations over a period of at leat 50 years and see if there is any anamolic patterns in regards to the organ regressing.

But I'd think we'd see that in the research, so as long as that is true, then yes.

Pinky toes are regressing. They are more and more becoming smaller and smaller and curling under the foot.