[ignora]

It seems that scientists cannot find any evidence of evolution

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

[iNow]

ignora said:

It seems that scientists cannot find any evidence of evolution

Who ever told you that is either ignorant, lying, or some combination of those two things... Neither of which speaks very well of their trustworthiness on this topic.


There is a GREAT DEAL of evidence for evolution, both in the fossil record AND in other research domains.

[Mr Skeptic]

The fossil record does provide evidence of evolution, but not nearly as good as that provided by genetics.

[Mokele]

Actually, the fossil record provides such detailed records of evolution that we can actually time it and watch one species become another.

Quote

The fossil record does provide evidence of evolution, but not nearly as good as that provided by genetics.

IMHO, it's simply a case of 'different', not better/worse. Genetics can show what's related to what, but has great difficulty with long-separated lineages and is highly sensitive to included/excluded taxa. It can even yeild flat-out incorrect results due to omission of fossil taxa (as it did when the phylogeny of mammals was revised). Also, remember that genetics can only show us what's related, not how the change happened. For instance, we know via genetics that snakes evolved from lizards, but we still don't know *how* - there's evidence for a marine origin, and evidence for a burrowing origin. Genetics cannot help with this, so we have to simply keep digging until we find the right fossil snake.

[npts2020]

ignora said:

It seems that scientists cannot find any evidence of evolution

Seems to me that it is mainly anti-scientists that cannot find any evidence of evolution.

[Sayonara³]

It seems to me that this thread is a set-up. The title asks a question but the OP makes a baseless flat statement. Ignora - read a journal then we'll change your name to Informda.

[stereologist]

One of the most impressive and detailed fossil sequences is the one that shows the evolution from reptile to mammal. It wasn't that long ago that the origin of whales was unknown. Now the sequence from land mammal to whale is one of the best known evolutionary sequences. So to claim that scientists can't find any evidence of evolution is baseless.

Let me tell you about a lecture I went to in which the lecture was on the fallacy of evolution. In that lecture the person showed a fuzzy photo of what was described as a sandal print crushing a trilobite. The lecturer lamented that this was a poor photo. He claimed to have a better one back in his office where you could actually see the stitching. Now why this person brought a low quality version of the photo to a lecture was never explained. He went on to describe the print in detail showing the heel of the sandal, where stitching was visible in the better photo, and so forth. He told the audience he would send the better photo if you asked for it. I did. I also have a fairly good idea that this was nothing more than a mineral stain in the rock that have formed around the trilobite. Research at the university library verified that the fossil deposit was prone to these stains. I did receive the photo in the mail. It was the same fuzzy mark although now I could see that the so-called heel mark was nothing more than a crack that extended across the entire rock face. It was just an oval stain on a rock. And someone had the gall to stand in front of an audience and lie like that. What else is untrue?

[scrappy]

ignora said:

It seems that scientists cannot find any evidence of evolution

I agree. All those fossils collected by all those paleontologists never evolved into anything.

[swansont]

scrappy said:

I agree. All those fossils collected by all those paleontologists never evolved into anything.

Poe's Law is real. Satire and parody in this area are indistinguishable from sincere positions.

Which is it?

[scrappy]

swansont said:

Poe's Law is real. Satire and parody in this area are indistinguishable from sincere positions.

Which is it?

Well, Poe's Law is a new one one me. I was responding satirically to the OP, which asserted that no evidence exists for evolution. Since the fossil record is the best evidence we have, I was making fun of the fact that fossils don't evolve...'cuz they're just deal old fossils...ah, never mind.

[stereologist]

One of the first people to openly discuss the meaning of fossils was DaVinci. He was interested in discussing two issues:
1. Were fossils the product of the devil to confuse people
2. What did fossils have to say about the biblical account of the flood

He quickly disputes claim 1 and moves on to 2. He points out that bivalves have connected shells that are quickly torn apart by the action of waves. Connected shells are ones found near the place where the animals were alive. Then he discusses fossil deposits of connects shells found far inland. He concludes that the flood could not have tossed the bivalves far inland without separating the shells.

These discussions of fossils and their interpretation should realize that this has been going on for half a millenium or longer. The upshot over this long time has been that fossils are real, demonstrate evolution, and there is always more to learn as new and exciting fossil discoveries are made.