Fossils out of order?


(Dcscccc) #1

hi garrett. you said:

“The fossils were in the exact order that evolutionary theory predicted them to be”-

not realy. for example:

http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

when scientists find a fossil that date milions of years before what they thought. they just push back the fossil record of the species. if somone will find a human with t-rex they will push back the humans to the dino age. simple.

we even find a lots of out of place fossils in the science literature:

http://creationwiki.org/Anomalously_Occurring_Fossils

here is for example a new out of place fossil:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html

“dated to about 395 million years ago — more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved.”


Discovering the Beauty of God’s Evolving Creation: My Story | The BioLogos Forum
Discovering the Beauty of God’s Evolving Creation: My Story | The BioLogos Forum
(Brad Kramer) #2

@dcscccc here are some links from our site that address some of these claims:

http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record

http://biologos.org/blog/series/human-fossil-record

http://biologos.org/blog/where-are-the-transitional-fossils

I think I can say with complete confidence that scientists would not place humans alongside dinosaurs chronologically with the finding of one fossil. What you are suggesting would be a complete paradigm shift, which would not happen without a significant body of evidence that the current evolutionary history is massively wrong (which is not the case—in fact, current discoveries provide no such evidence).

I am quite certain that you will have a response with some more links, but my purpose here is not to get into an argument, but simply to provide some additional links with a different perspective (instead of just deleting your post). I would urge you to respect the purpose of this thread—providing feedback and encouragement to the author—and if you have further thoughts about fossils, create a new topic to share them.


(Dcscccc) #3

hi brad. i just want to discuss the topic from scientific prespective. not just to debate for the argument.

if one fossil in the wrong place cant disprove the evolution theory- what about the list of 200 of them i showed? actually a lots of fossils dates are made by only one fossil. so a one fossil of human with t-rex should be enough. so the main points is that this fossil will not disprove the evolution theory. just will change the geologic time of the species.and that the fossils are not realy in a correct order.

have a nice day


#4

I have been informed that there are lots of mammal fossils in the same sedimentary layers and adjacent to dinosaur fossils, as well as duck fossils and many insect fossils. This is hardly ever highlighted, since paleontolgists and paleo-geologists prefer to concentrate on dinosaur fossils. Does this impact the assumed evolutionary timetable, or our perception of it? Recently, I was also informed that there were many fossils of kangaroos discovered in Europe, and none in Australia. How does this match up with what we would expect?


#5

It has become an article of faith that humans have descended from other primates. Nice diagrams are drawn. Words like primitive characteristics and derived characteristics are used. But language used to describe a theoretical process, cannot be proof that it happened. In reality, the fossils and bones of these primates either fit into a human category, or into an ape-like category, and cannot be demonstrated, except thru blind belief, to be transitional between the species. The diversity in the human race is huge. Huge. And yet they are all human, not transitional. It is interesting that that the second article anthropomorphizes the evolutionary process with an example of relationships between human relatives. However, is it really legitimate to draw a comparison between something we know to be true, such as relations between relatives, and something we suspect isn’t true, such as relations between non-relatives? What is not disputed is micro-evolution, or change within species. What is at issue is change between species, or generation of new genetic information which is sufficient to create more complex organisms and new species. IN the example of relatives being related variously, the example would be synonymous to the postulation of evolution if two of the nephews became half dogs, or half chimps, merely through genetic mutation. In all of the humans we know, we have not discovered an inability to procreate based on population dynamics, ie. there is no evidence of the beginning of any type of speciation taking place in spite of the separation of various groups of humans. Even buffalo and domestic cattle are able to breed, in spite of their obvious differences. The speculation is enormous, but the evidence?


#7

Having looked at Brad’s first link in his post above, I discover there is a fundamental difference in interpretation of the lack of transitional fossils. Biologos says that it is amazing at all that transitional fossils are found, while normal evolutionary theory would predict as many transitionals, probably more transitionals, as other species in the fossil record. Since we would expect the transitions to occur slowly and gradually, we should find many. In fact we should find many unsuccessful transitions that went extinct, as well as successful transitions. If the transitions all did a hop-skip-jump, then we might expect to find much fewer. But there is not much of a plausible reason for the quick transitions. I don’t think the one postulated in the link is really justified.


#8

Not sure why this thread allows replies but if you’re still available could you post the references for the kangaroos in Europe and mammals with dinos?

It would be awesome if you still have them, thanks.


#9

[quote=“johnZ, post:7, topic:350”]
Biologos says that it is amazing at all that transitional fossils are found, while normal evolutionary theory would predict as many transitionals, probably more transitionals, as other species in the fossil record. [/quote]
I think you’re missing several points.

Why? Does every dead animal become fossilized? What proportion would one expect in reality?

It seems as though you are thinking of a ladder with tiny branches instead of a bush.

[quote] If the transitions all did a hop-skip-jump,
[/quote]The “jumping” is because very few animals become fossilized. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How many fossils of passenger pigeons have been found to date?


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #10

Of course there are mammals next to dinosaurs. Early mammals lived alongside the dinosaurs. They had not yet diversified into the variety of forms we see today, but some of the diversity was already evident, and they were there. How else would they have taken over when the dinosaurs perished, unless they already existed?

[Edit: Of course, technically, mammals still exist alongside dinosaurs today! Avian dinosaurs, that is.]

Ducks and insects also existed at the same time… in fact they still do today. What am I missing?

The only spurious item here is kangaroos in Europe. Kangaroos evolved entirely within Australia and have only ever lived there. (Modern European zoos being a technical exception, of course.) If you can give us a link to these findings, it would help.


(George Brooks) #11

As others have noted, @johnZ, contrary to popular belief, a few mammals
did live amongst the dinosaurs … but they were all small. Small enough
to live in places that dinosaurs couldn’t get to them or notice them.

ALL the large mammals … from Elephants to Whales … are found ABOVE the
dinosaur layers (above the KT layer). ALL of them.

And yet NO Dinosaurs large or small (except Birds) are found ABOVE the KT layer.

And let’s not forget Australia! 30 million years ago, it separated from all the other
land masses of the Earth. Placental mammals had not yet reached Australia.
So until humans brought dogs, cats and rabbits, ONLY
marsupial mammals existed on Australia.

This is not explainable if ALL the animals left the ark less than 5,000 years
ago. In fact, placental mammals would have reached Australia FIRST - -
because of their ability to out-compete most
marsupials!

George Brooks


(Larry Bunce) #12

I have been looking up kangaroo fossils to see if any have been found in Europe. The confusion is over marsupials, which have left fossils all over the earth. Kangaroos are marsupials, but their fossils and those of their ancestors are found only in Australia.
Australia, South America, and Australia were once connected as a part of Gondwanaland, and similar fossils are found in all 3 places from that time. Placental mammals were in Australia in early times, but became extinct as the climate became harsher.


(Jan De Boer) #13

@AMWolfe
Hello, could it be possible that an ancient human civilization imported kangaroos from Australia to their country?


(George Brooks) #14

Precisely! But to clarify further … Marsupials left fossils all over the world because
they were the first to emerge. Placentals appeared later. And by the time they had
developed their superiority over most marsupials … Australia was out of reach.

George


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #15

I assume this is satire. If so, well played, Jan de Boer, well played. [slow clap] =)


(Patrick ) #16

Here is something AIG put out today on the recent paper on the one-two punch from asteroid and volcanism


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #17

I am currently experiencing a complete inability to “can even”… It makes me so sad thinking some people feel this is what they have to do to hold onto their faith. Lord, have mercy on us all.


(Dcscccc) #18

we find marsupial also in china:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1215_031215_oldestmarsupial.html


(George Brooks) #19

@dcscccc

Again… you reveal your lack of background in natural history.

Marsupial bones are EVERYWHERE … because Marsupial mammals evolved BEFORE
placental mammals.

The “hinge” of the Marsupial topic is that there were no living Placental mammals
found in Australia until humans BROUGHT them there.

For this to be compatible with the story of the Ark… you literally have to think that

  1. marsupials got off the ark;
  2. they outran the placentals all the way to Australia, which was unusually close to Africa or India;
  3. and then, say 2000 years ago, ALL OF AUSTRALIA separated from the
    African or Indian landmasses.

This is TREMENDOUSLY humorous to imagine.

George Brooks


(Dcscccc) #20

its funny because even according to the evolution- a lot of species make a trip on a raft with food and in pairs:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/evolution_and_m081781.html


(Patrick ) #21

Here is another paper by AIG scientists. They are go back to the Cambian and saying that the dinosaur fossils were “dissolved” by acid. They are try to get the Cambian-PreCambian layer AND the KT boundary into one year (real dates are 542MYA and 66MYA) just 4350 years ago. Ridiculous.