He gave me the example of a watch and how complex it is that it can only be attributed to a designer. I’ve begun to dislike my self for accepting evolution uncritically because without actually trying to understand it and then being asked by creationists to explain how such a complex world is made naturally makes me the same as them I kind of hold it with faith. I am aware that everything including the universe has evolved and was never in a static state and it is because of human intuitive psychology which has left us explanations with designers or deities of all sorts to explain the universe but am ignorant of the study and the large amounts of research that shows evolution is a fact and wish to understand more. So I was wondering if you people would be kind enough to answer some of my questions, I am not a creationist just not very informed with evolution. How are fossils formed within nature and how can one accurately know the date in which it lived? What is a reasonable response to the ‘were you there so how would you know? How do we know that dating is accurate? How does embryology support evolution with embryos displaying features of their ancestors and is then lost?
Thank you for your response. My question to you was: No, of course not. Therefore, when you admit that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, you have given up appeals to knowledge. And yet, following that admission, you make countless subsequent knowledge claims which cannot be accounted for according to your worldview. You cannot demonstrate from your worldview that certainty is impossible.
Another fossil hominid that creationists say is in the “wrong place” for evolution is the well-established Homo erectus. In this case, they don’t try to claim that the fossils are getting dusty in museum closets because scientists are conveniently forgetting about them.
It is captivating and compelling…covers all the bases. What many people today never hear and realize is the fact that so-called evolutionary theory is not based on known scientific laws or the preponderance of scientific evidence. Rather, scientific creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, is perfectly consistent with all known laws and evidence—and such evidence is overwhelming. The reality is, evolutionary doctrine is built on false assumptions and poor science.
It is the greatest deception in modern history. Why do secular scientists continue to adhere to a false evolutionary doctrine?
Evolution: Online Lessons for Students: Activity 2
Human Evolution Evidence Evidence of Evolution Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution , and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years.
Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates — in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms — and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world.
Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.
The fossil record should have been bursting with millions upon millions of completely dysfunctional-looking organisms at various stages of development for the evolution of each life form. And for each higher life form — human, monkey, chimpanzee, etc. — there should have been billions of .
Important We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory. By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also. Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons: To keep from being accused of bias. To keep from making claims that someone could refute later.
Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley.
Need some help understanding how genes, fossils, embryos, and dating support evolution. : evolution
The Fossil Record of Life Note: Authorities differ as to precise time boundaries between geologic periods. Eon Period Epoch While this page is about paleontology and fossils, it is also inseparably connected to geology and plate tectonics.
Posts about Fossil Dating written by Roberto Peron. Peron Rants follow our analysis and explorations here! Erectus, Europe, Evolution, Fossil Dating, Homo habilis, Junk Science, Macro-evolution, Micorevolution, Fossil Formation and Fossil Dating. Posted by .
Age of the Earth Fossils provide a unique view into the history of life by showing the forms and features of life in the past. For instance, in , scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology. Though the fossil record does not include every plant and animal that ever lived, it provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution.
The fossil record is a remarkable gift for the study of nature. Evidence of Gradual Change Organisms have changed significantly over time.
We believe that at specific times in the past, this environment was much wetter and more vegetated than today Credit: Robyn Pickering is the first to provide a timeline for fossils from the caves within the Cradle of Humankind. It also sheds light on the climate conditions of our earliest ancestors in the area. In fact, the research suggests fossils from Cradle caves date to just six specific time periods.
When looking at a faminly tree tracing the evolution of different mammals, you can see that the split of whales and hippos was the most recent development. There is also a space for the (now extinct) transitional form between whales and land mammals.
How does young earth creationism handle the evidence for millions of years in the fossil record? The trick with interpreting the fossil record is that most paleontologists also subscribe an atheistic version of evolution. They interpret the fossil record in terms of that particular worldview, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory, which is more than a little circular.
The question, then, is how do creationists interpret the fossil record? We need to begin with the premise that it is impossible for the Bible to contradict true science, as God is the author of all truth and knowledge. That is to say, the Bible may be misinterpreted by men, but it will never be wrong. The scientific observations may be wrong, the biblical interpretations may be wrong, but the Scriptures never are.
Yet the Bible is not always specific on all points. This, of course, is illogical. At the most, all that might be disproved is that particular interpretation of Scripture. All that being said, we as Young Earth Creationists feel there are reasons to doubt the prevailing view of the fossil record. The fields of paleontology and fossilology are highly prone to error. One famous example is the coelacanth.
How does young earth creationism handle the evidence for millions of years in the fossil record
View images by clicking on link or reduced image: Each image opens into a new window. These primitive, medium sized apes lived in rain forests between 18 and 22 million years ago. This species and others such as Dryopithecus existed before the hominid line diverged on the path to humans. This lineage ancestral gibbons is believed to have diverged from the great ape and human lineages between 17 and 25 Mya Avers,
A newly unearthed fossil from Ethiopia is altering the timeline of human evolution, pushing it back by nearly a half-million years. so the dating pushes back the origin of the Homo genus by at.
A phenotypic characteristic, acquired during growth and development, that is not genetically based and therefore cannot be passed on to the next generation for example, the large muscles of a weightlifter. Any heritable characteristic of an organism that improves its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. Also used to describe the process of genetic change within a population, as influenced by natural selection. A graph of the average fitness of a population in relation to the frequencies of genotypes in it.
Peaks on the landscape correspond to genotypic frequencies at which the average fitness is high, valleys to genotypic frequencies at which the average fitness is low. Also called a fitness surface. A behavior has adaptive logic if it tends to increase the number of offspring that an individual contributes to the next and following generations. If such a behavior is even partly genetically determined, it will tend to become widespread in the population.
Then, even if circumstances change such that it no longer provides any survival or reproductive advantage, the behavior will still tend to be exhibited — unless it becomes positively disadvantageous in the new environment.
Fossil Record and Radiometric Dating by Jay S on Prezi
January Fossils provide a record of the history of life. Smith is known as the Father of English Geology. Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating.
The fossil record of human origins and evolution (from exhibits at the National Museum, Nairobi, Kenya, compiled for ) Most of the evidence for human evolution has been found in eastern and southern Africa, and Kenya There are several different ways of absolute dating of fossils and rocks depending on.
This article is over 6 years old A skull from one of the bodies found in a pit in Spain. Dozens of ancient skeletons have been unearthed. La Sima de los Huesos — the Pit of Bones — has been designated a Unesco world heritage site because of its importance to understanding evolution, and millions of euros, donated by the EU, have been spent constructing a museum of human antiquity in nearby Burgos.
But Britain’s leading expert on human evolution, Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum , has warned in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology that the team in charge of La Sima has got the ages of its fossils wrong by , years and has incorrectly identified the species of ancient humans found there. Far from being a , year-old lair of a species called Homo heidelbergensis, he believes the pit is filled with Neanderthal remains that are no more than , years old.
The difference in interpretation has crucial implications for understanding human evolution. It is the world’s biggest collection of ancient human fossils and the team there has done a magnificent job in excavating the site. However, if we cannot correctly fix the age and identity of the remains then we are in trouble. Getting that wrong even affects how we construct our own evolution. One brought back a few fragments of human bone. Excavations led by Juan Luis Arsuaga, of Madrid university, began in and within two years had uncovered two complete human brain cases.
Ribcages, leg bones and jawbones were also dug up. Arsuaga tentatively dated the finds as being , years old. Since then, the remains of 28 bodies have been dug up, the world’s greatest single haul of ancient human fossils.
This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end-product. In addition, there is “common lead, “which has no radioactive parent lead This could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. Faul, an authority in the field, recognized it also: When the earth’s crust was formed, the primordial lead was frozen into rocks that also contained uranium and thorium in various ratios to lead.
There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: You are losing ground! Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research ICR regularly trots out the “bossie-to-blowhole” transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors. It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Of course, for many years the fossil record for the whales was quite spotty, but now there are numerous transitional forms that illustrate the pathway of whale evolution. Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.
However, evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics – it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales.