So... on to the second category - the fossil record.
The fossil record shows the appearance and for many the disappearance of creatures and plants throughout geological time. This begs the question of how these creatures came to be. The fossil record is still incomplete, and by it's very nature shows us snapshots in time. I always like when a creature which is believed to be extinct for millennia suddenly shows up.
Charles Darwin said
And despite a largely expanded fossil record this is still true. We do see some similarities, in which we can imagine a common lineage, but I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen. It is still not a finely graduated chain which is described. I have also become leery of drawings presented as evidence. I have found at times, where claims and similarities are greatly exaggerated based on scant fossil evidence. I do want to know what they are basing their conclusion on what are the similarities and differences, and what fossil they have. This is often lacking at least in the popular articles.
Also, I do believe that the fossil record does show a punctuated equilibrium. Where creatures suddenly appear fully formed, and remain largely unchanged for their time in the fossil record. Similarly in events such as the Cambrian explosion we see major changes in a relatively short period of time.
Also just to be up front - I do question some of the assumptions in dating. We are assuming that the daughter isotope is completely removed during formation of the rock. Also the dating is not done on the fossils themselves, nor the rock in which they are found (you cannot date sedimentary rock in which most fossils remain).
The fossil record shows the appearance and for many the disappearance of creatures and plants throughout geological time. This begs the question of how these creatures came to be. The fossil record is still incomplete, and by it's very nature shows us snapshots in time. I always like when a creature which is believed to be extinct for millennia suddenly shows up.
Charles Darwin said
Quote:Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
And despite a largely expanded fossil record this is still true. We do see some similarities, in which we can imagine a common lineage, but I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen. It is still not a finely graduated chain which is described. I have also become leery of drawings presented as evidence. I have found at times, where claims and similarities are greatly exaggerated based on scant fossil evidence. I do want to know what they are basing their conclusion on what are the similarities and differences, and what fossil they have. This is often lacking at least in the popular articles.
Also, I do believe that the fossil record does show a punctuated equilibrium. Where creatures suddenly appear fully formed, and remain largely unchanged for their time in the fossil record. Similarly in events such as the Cambrian explosion we see major changes in a relatively short period of time.
Also just to be up front - I do question some of the assumptions in dating. We are assuming that the daughter isotope is completely removed during formation of the rock. Also the dating is not done on the fossils themselves, nor the rock in which they are found (you cannot date sedimentary rock in which most fossils remain).
