Forums → WEPR → Evolution
| 779 | 172617 |
- 779 Replies
That's not really how it works though. In this case it's different. Since there are missing links and I mean many missing links fossils in evolution, and we have found many fossils already, don't you think we should have found them by now? Like I said earlier, they obviously don't exist.
Take 5 more pieces out of the puzzle. It's still obvious.
Also, you're right, they may not exist. Not every bone of every animal is preserved, and some may not exist anymore. They could have existed at one point before they decayed away.
And in the large picture, finding the links between things is not even needed to prove evolution. It is extraordinarily simple to observe and prove that through every reproduction, mutations occur. And it is only logical that mutations that benefits a specie are more likely to keep that specimen alive for longer (therefor able to reproduce for longer) than mutations that harm it. Links between species is not needed for proof of evolution, it is simply a demonstration of it.
And then you can just as easily observe and prove evolution by watching it right in front of your eyes. Take a plate of bacteria, expose them to something that should kill them, and most of them would die. But some will survive, and very soon you'll have a plate full of them again, but if you try to use the same substance to kill them, they won't die. This is because they evolved and developed a resistance to whatever method of killing you used on them.
That's not really how it works though. In this case it's different. Since there are missing links and I mean many missing links fossils in evolution, and we have found many fossils already, don't you think we should have found them by now? Like I said earlier, they obviously don't exist.
I would like first point out that we don't even need the fossil record to demonstrate common decent. We can find evidence of it when we compare genetics. For example we find the exact same retro viral markers in two different species in the exact same places. Even from this only we can create a tree illustrating common ancestry between species. This evidence can be found in the here and now and matches with what we are concluding based on the fossil evidence. Basically we have two completely independent forms of evidence leading us to the same conclusion.
As for how we use the fossil record think of it like snapshots forming a timeline.
For example here is a series of snapshots of Michael Jackson. Each picture was taken at a different point in MJ's life. You'll notice in some of the pictures not much has changed, while in others there has been a great deal of change. You will also notice that there are gaps between points. Does that mean that because I couldn't find photos showing a smooth transition from MJ as a baby to MJ as a young kid, or MJ as a young kid to MJ as an adult that those steps between him as a baby to being a kid and as a kid to being an adult didn't happen? Or does it mean that I was simply unable to find snapshots of those steps because I simply didn't look hard enough or because they are simply unavailable?
The fossil record is like this series of snapshots. We may have some close to each other and others far apart, with either small or large gaps. But we can use them to construct a timeline of the life on Earth.