Fossils in Wrong Places

[Simbabones]

I have been in a debate with someone that claims that evolution has no evidence. This question, however, is particularly focusing on a factor he mentioned: fossils have been found in wrong places. Does this suggest that evolution or at least the fossil record is in at least some way incorrect or unreliable, or is this an insignificant factor?

[Moontanman]

8 minutes ago, Simbabones said:

I have been in a debate with someone that claims that evolution has no evidence. This question, however, is particularly focusing on a factor he mentioned: fossils have been found in wrong places. Does this suggest that evolution or at least the fossil record is in at least some way incorrect or unreliable, or is this an insignificant factor?

This is something I am intensely interested in and it is true that an out of place fossil could put into question current understanding it would have to be something quite impossible like a rabbit in the Cambrian era or something similar. As far as I know no such thing has ever been found. I would ask your friend for a citation, I would enjoy looking into any evidence that has been found that is out of place in this manner... 

[arc]

The fossils are undoubtedly in the "right places" it's simply the observer is unable to garner enough information to explain the circumstances that led to their deposition.

[Simbabones]

Here is my idea of it. If, say, a fossil that was believed to have been around since 200 mya was discovered again and was dated at around 50 mya, that would not necessarily disprove evolution, as it could have survived through that time. Also, fossils of its type (whatever it is; shell, fern, etc.) were already found before 50 mya, so it would not be a particularly unique species of a new type.

If, however, a rabbit fossil was found and dated back to 500 mya, that would cause some issues, since at that time no mammals (and therefore rabbits) could have been around according to evolution and the current fossil record. As of now, no discovery like this has been found, and evolution has not been refuted from such a discovery.

[arc]

That seems to be a fair assessment. And always remember any paradoxical discovery is weighed against a preponderance of very well understood evidence in favor of evolution. It is then unlikely one single contrary discovery could overturn the very many in favor. 

[studiot]

At last a proper thread about proper Science.

Thank you Simbabones, +1

 

Here an opposition view on the demise of the Dinosaurs and how their subsequent fossils came to be where they are.

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by studiot

[Moontanman]

11 hours ago, Simbabones said:

Here is my idea of it. If, say, a fossil that was believed to have been around since 200 mya was discovered again and was dated at around 50 mya, that would not necessarily disprove evolution, as it could have survived through that time. Also, fossils of its type (whatever it is; shell, fern, etc.) were already found before 50 mya, so it would not be a particularly unique species of a new type.

If, however, a rabbit fossil was found and dated back to 500 mya, that would cause some issues, since at that time no mammals (and therefore rabbits) could have been around according to evolution and the current fossil record. As of now, no discovery like this has been found, and evolution has not been refuted from such a discovery.

 

Didn't I just say that? You are of course correct some dinosaur bones have been found in younger starta than they should be but that could be caused by erosion washing fossil bones out of the old strata and laying them down in newer strata...  

[Sensei]

Quote

Fossils in Wrong Places

Any references.. ?

 

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Didn't I just say that? You are of course correct some dinosaur bones have been found in younger starta than they should be but that could be caused by erosion washing fossil bones out of the old strata and laying them down in newer strata...  

 

Both are arguing the same thing but with different measures. One is based on direct dating, the second is indirect and based on deposition. The latter (what could be meant by OP, though at the later point OP referred to actual dating). 

[Bender]

If the fossils were put into the ground by a god, he must have done so very carefully and with the obvious intent to trick us into thinking evolution is correct. If a fossil is in the wrong place, it means god messed up ;-).

[mistermack]

Fossils in the wrong place? This has happened. I've seen them, in the Natural History Museum. But there is usually a story about how they got there.  

The same applies to any other apparent misplacement. As someone else said, in view of the billions of fossils that are in the RIGHT place, you have to assume that if you find one in the wrong place, it's probably been moved as the default position and look for evidence of that.

If all of the evidence suggests that it HASN'T been moved, then what you have is a mystery. Not a refutation of evolution. It would take millions of them to begin to do that.

You also have to be cautious of very clever fakers. It's been done with oil paintings and antiquities "worth" millions. So experts can be fooled.

[dimreepr]

We also have to factor in the rarity of fossils, Trex, for example, existed on earth for say 2,000,000 years, I don't know how many animals that would represent but I'm thinking it would be way more than 2 million and so far we've found 50. We also have to factor in convergent evolution, so if we did find a fossil that appears to be in the wrong place, we have no real way to know, because there are more gaps in our knowledge of pre-history than the number of Trex's that rotted to nothing.

[Area54]

A couple of replies have contained this point, but I think it merits emphasis. The vast majority of fossils are in the right place. That's like 99.9999999999% of them, or more. There are only two explanations to account for the observed distribution of fossils.

1. Evolutionary theory, with descent from a common ancestor, is correct.

2. An entitiy, or entity has placed 99.9999999999% of fossils in exactly the way we would expect them to appear if evolutionary theory, with descent from a common ancestor, was correct.

It seems to me somewhat foolish to favour option 2 without supporting data.

[mistermack]

Nicely put.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Trex, for example, existed on earth for say 2,000,000 years, I don't know how many animals that would represent but I'm thinking it would be way more than 2 million and so far we've found 50

 

And I thought that was the limit of Spielberg's dinobudget.

 

Another childhood illusion shattered.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

And I thought that was the limit of Spielberg's dinobudget.

 

Another childhood illusion shattered.

LOL, my daughter used to copy the seminal moment in the film, hand on head, to turn ones focus onto the big buggers.