CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does the Fossil Record Prove Evolution?
The Fossil Record
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.’
- Ronald R. West
Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.
Time Magazine, 1994
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of "missing links".
- Arthur J. Boucot
Evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record.
- Lipson, FRS
[F]or more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding ... Today the fossil record ... is forcing us to revise this conventional view.
- Stanley, S. M.
The known fossil record is not, and has never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.
-Stanley, S. M.
It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.
- Simpson, George Gaylord
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record.
- David B. Kitts
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.
-Ronald R. West
Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.
- Ernst Mayr
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and , ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
- Dr David M. Raup
Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
- Niles Eldredge
One might suppose that Darwin, like his modern intellectual descendants, saw in the fossil record a confirmation of his theory -- the literal documentation of life's evolution from the Cambrian to the present day. In fact, the two chapters devoted to geology in The Origin of Species are anything but celebratory. On the contrary, they constitute a carefully worded apology in which Darwin argues that evolution by natural selection is correct despite an evident lack of support from fossils.
- Andrew Knoll
It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level most species appear without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare.
Never thought evolution was true to begin with it was all based off of one guys theory which was never even close to being proven, many just agree with it because it sounds good which it is a good theory none the less. I doubt you will be getting anyone to justify belief in evolution with reasonable logical response without being able to call BS on what they claim because I know there are plenty on here that believe in evo. Better off in believing that Nintendo will rename the WiiU to Evolution than waiting for some ancient missing piece of miracle evidence to pop up out of the grave from Darwins tomb that will finally put an end to the doubt on his theory of evo.
Have you studied what I believe in or what logic I am using at all to make an assumption that I am even basing my debate off of religion. Anyone who is blinded by being too ignorant to even consider looking at other possible explanations for anything, can find it easy that the evolution process is the perfect gem in how we have gotten here today.
Ya its pretty simple, plenty of different old scripts/text from civilizations long ago giving writings, explanations, and drawings on how man has came into existence today along with other creatures. And we might as well add religion in there to since Mr. Cuaroc makes it seem as this is the thing that can be used to go against evolution.
My observation of the natural world has led me to believe that Intelligent Design makes 'perfect sense'. The Zebra, Parrot, Kangaroo, Killer Whale, Peacock, Camel, and Elephant all appear to the results of a creative mind. Many plants and seem appear to be designed, by a creator with a sense of humor, the woodpecker and venus flytrap come to mind.
In nature, bees carry pollen from one plant to another while collecting for food and honey, causing them to reproduce themselves at the expense of the bees hard work- a clear indication of humorous design. Some plants grew fruit, nuts, or berries that fall to the ground, get eaten by animals and get crapped out later only to sprout somewhere else far away- another obvious case of design with a sense of humor.
In nature, bees carry pollen from one plant to another while collecting for food and honey, causing them to reproduce themselves at the expense of the bees hard work- a clear indication of humorous design.
Wrong. A clear indication of evolution. And there is nothing humorous about it, bees live in colonies. They have a queen, workers, the ones who take care of the young (those are the ones I remember, might have been some others).
There are also ants who build their nests, the exact same thing as is with bees, the only difference is they don't fly. And they don't fly because they cut off their wings (not sure about all species but definitely the ones that live here where I am).
Some plants grew fruit, nuts, or berries that fall to the ground, get eaten by animals and get crapped out later only to sprout somewhere else far away- another obvious case of design with a sense of humor.
There is no sense of humor there. It is evolution.
By your definition of humorous so should humans be humorous. So, are we? When considering you then it is not humorous, it is sad - the fact that you are so ignorant and deny reality. But then again, since you are so fucked up, it kinda is humorous (you saying something stupid like we were designed and created when there is abundant evidence to the contrary).
What evidence to the contrary is there that we are NOT designed? Indeed, there is plenty of clues to suggest we were created by an advanced, intelligent, Creator. The reason why is that, even if evolution is surging at full capacity anywhere and nowhere, there is absolutely no explanation for the higher intelligence of man. Countless species which are dumber than a rock have proven to extremely adaptive to survival and have survived far longer than many species who were far more intelligent. Nothing in Darwin actually predicts the emergence of higher intelligence, let alone any intelligence at all. Unthinking, unknowing but long-lasting, impossible to compete with creatures, like earthworms for example, would have been the most likely result of evolution
What evidence to the contrary is there that we are NOT designed?
Simple. Learn physics, biology, chemistry, evolution, in fact all science and you'll have all the evidence for the contrary.
Indeed, there is plenty of clues to suggest we were created by an advanced, intelligent, Creator.
There are zero clues to suggest we have been designed. Only fantasy can suggest we have been designed.
The reason why is that, even if evolution is surging at full capacity anywhere and nowhere, there is absolutely no explanation for the higher intelligence of man.
Yes there is. It simply shows that you know pretty much nothing about evolution.
"Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are already apparent in great apes although in lesser sophistication than in humans." has to say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
Many animals, currently, have those same attributes. Whether they will have the right conditions for those to change and become more complex is not known, but the fact is they have those attributes just as did our ancestors who evidently we evolved from. If there is a necessity then all of that will become more complex.
It was necessary to find new ways of finding food and getting warm, aside from what was provided by nature, since all that changed. They had to begin using the creative part of their mind far more then previously to survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Countless species which are dumber than a rock have proven to extremely adaptive to survival and have survived far longer than many species who were far more intelligent.
Dumber than a rock? Something very stupid to say.
Some species have had no need for significant change, they are superior in their environment. No one and nothing rivals and threatens them. This comes from simple logic - something you clearly lack.
Instead of simply saying things, how about giving actual evidence? And by evidence I don't mean something stupid someone has said, without accounting for all aspects.
Nothing in Darwin actually predicts the emergence of higher intelligence, let alone any intelligence at all. Unthinking, unknowing but long-lasting, impossible to compete with creatures, like earthworms for example, would have been the most likely result of evolution
Darwin??? That is what you base your claims on? Come to present day, 2012, you delusional moron! We know far more than we did back in those days. Read all the sources I provided, think and connect them, and you'll have your answers!
I give up dealing with you. You give me wikipedia quotes which are Totally biased and unconvincing and you simply dismiss any of the arguments and evidence for the implausibility of evolution and for the possibility of other theories. Don't you think that perhaps intelligent aliens may have aided in the creation of life and mankind? No, well that's strange since a lot of UFO believers are, just like Darwinists, doubters in the Judeo-Christian God. The founder of DNA Dr. Crick believes in Intelligent Design by Aliens, mainly because he see no possible way life could have originated without outside interference. Open your mind, Mr. Evolution. There are many doubts and they are gaining ground. There's even a new movie called Prometheus about this subject. I deny evolution because of the lack of evidence, not to bolster my faith in a Judeo-Christian God. I'm simply questioning a bullshit theory that many others are starting to do likewise. Neither Physics, nor biology provides evidence 'proving' there was no design. Are you hysterically against Design because you're hysterically against God. What about aliens? According to one leading Evolutionary Biologist, Darwinism is simply full of holes, it's just wrong. Here's some of his conclusions:
+ Darwinian Gradualism is an Incorrect Assumption +
It's remarkable that even though processes like hybridization and symbiogenesis have been well-known for decades, many neo-Darwinists firmly insist on gradualism in evolutionary change. Their position notwithstanding, living organisms have many tools at their disposal for generating sudden change.
- James A. Shapiro
Today we can apply genome sequence data to test Darwin's theory. It answers clearly about gradualism. Many genome changes at key stages of evolution have been neither small nor gradual.
- James A. Shapiro
Was Darwin simply mistaken about the gradual nature of hereditary variation? Such ignorance would be unavoidable before we knew about Mendelian genetics and DNA.
- James A. Shapiro
My argument remains that the innovative process in evolution is rapid natural genetic engineering rather than gradual selection of small changes over long periods of time.
- James A. Shapiro
+ Random Mutation Cannot, and Does Not, Cause Evolution +
There has always been controversy about whether random variation and natural selection for improved fitness can truly explain biological evolution over time.
- James A. Shapiro
Conventional wisdom has it that the genetic changes underlying evolution are random accidents, each having a small chance of making incremental improvements in fitness. These ideas came about before we knew about DNA. Now that we have almost 60 years of DNA-based molecular genetics and genome sequencing behind us, a different picture has emerged.
- James A. Shapiro
Thinking about genomes from an informatic perspective, it is apparent that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-based random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations.
- James A. Shapiro
The second problem is that Darwin understood only "numerous, successive, slight modifications" as the sources of inherited change. His neo-Darwinian followers have modified this position to assert that all mutations occur randomly. They insist there is no biological input into the change process. For them, the genome determines organism characteristics. They think of it as a read-only memory (ROM), which only changes by accident. However, the last 60 years of molecular biology and genome sequencing have established that genome change is very much an active cellular biochemical process. I call this "natural genetic engineering."
- James A. Shapiro
+ Natural Selection is a False Premise +
Was Darwin simply mistaken about the gradual nature of hereditary variation? Such ignorance would be unavoidable before we knew about Mendelian genetics and DNA. Or was there a deeper flaw in the theory that he (and Alfred Russell Wallace) propounded? The answer may well be that it was a basic mistake to think that optimizing fitness is the source of biological diversity.
- James A. Shapiro
The first problem with selection as the source of diversity is that selection by humans, the subject of Darwin's opening chapter, modifies existing traits but does not produce new traits or new species. Dogs may vary widely as a result of selective breeding, but they always remain dogs.
- James A. Shapiro
My argument remains that the innovative process in evolution is rapid natural genetic engineering rather than gradual selection of small changes over long periods of time. This argument does not deny a role for selection. I simply assert that it is unrealistic to ascribe a creative (virtually deus ex machina) role to natural selection.
- James A. Shapiro
Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and novelty, selection has nothing to act upon. So this book is dedicated to considering the many ways that living organisms actively change themselves. . . . Conventional evolutionary theory made the simplifying assumption that inherited novelty was the result of change or accident. . . .
The info on wikipedia is backed up by tests, experiments, rational logic, actual evidence, it is backed up by that which actually exists.
I'll say it again, since Darwin, there's been done a lot more science, a lot more has been found out. And what has been found out only approves Darwin's predictions.
If you haven't realized yet then I'll tell you now. All theories, if new material is found are improved, or new and more conclusive ones are made. And creationism is simply a stupid idea, not even worthy of being called a theory.
Your reply to my previous argument proves only one thing - that you are a total idiot and delusional. You are insane.
You give me wikipedia quotes which are Totally biased and unconvincing and you simply dismiss any of the arguments and evidence for the implausibility of evolution and for the possibility of other theories.
Because evolution has been proved beyond a doubt.
Don't you think that perhaps intelligent aliens may have aided in the creation of life and mankind?
Oh, so God is out of the picture and you go for aliens? Aren't humans supposed to be the only intelligent creatures (aside God) here?
Listen to yourself. Seriously.
Why would aliens want to create us? There's no point. They would definitely be smart enough to let life advance on its own.
Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt, just look at the facts. And do not ignore them.
No, well that's strange since a lot of UFO believers are, just like Darwinists, doubters in the Judeo-Christian God.
A very weak point. Some might well believe there's a huge lollipop sugaring us every night as we sleep and fairies lick it all off of us before we wake up. By the way, UFO's are a far bigger probability that they exist (they do exist), unlike God that contradicts itself.
UFOs? Unidentified Flying Object. Can easily be built by humans, say an experiment, testing a prototype - something unknown to the general population.
Oh, and UFOs do exist. But it is doubtful they are of extraterrestrial origin, the ones supposedly sighted on Earth, anyway. Oh, and aliens also exist, our universe is too big for them not to exist.
The founder of DNA Dr. Crick believes in Intelligent Design by Aliens, mainly because he see no possible way life could have originated without outside interference.
And when was that? Quite a while ago, or what do you think? Our knowledge has increased substantially since then, making that opinion false.
Open your mind, Mr. Evolution.
Open your mind, Mr. Creation.
By the way, my mind is very open, unlike you who shuts out and ignores all logic and evidence shoved right into your face.
There are many doubts and they are gaining ground.
Fantasy may be gaining ground in entertainment industry but not in science... Get your facts straight.
There's even a new movie called Prometheus about this subject.
Oh, yeah. I love that franchise. The Alien and Predator universe. Great concept! Haven't seen the movie myself yet but I will once blu-ray comes out.
It's called science fiction for a reason. It is not called science fact.
I deny evolution because of the lack of evidence, not to bolster my faith in a Judeo-Christian God.
Lack of evidence? Here you go, and do think while reading, it has experiments, tests, discoveries (fossils), and all else in it - all that is evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I'm simply questioning a bullshit theory that many others are starting to do likewise.
Perhaps in your circulation of idiots. But not otherwise.
Evolution is proved by actual evidence - successful experiments, fossils, and actual logic.
Neither Physics, nor biology provides evidence 'proving' there was no design.
You see, the problem here is, THERE IS AND NEVER CAN BE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT CREATION That big and bold enough for you? Do you even know the definition of a God? If you knew and you really thought about it then you'd notice contradictions in it. Things that are simply impossible.
Evolution has abundant proof. That is why it is real, because evidence - something that exists - proves it.
Are you hysterically against Design because you're hysterically against God.
Hysterical? You clearly don't know what that word even means.
Give me evidence of your precious design. You can't because there is none. While there is abundant evidence for evolution.
Not logic nor any nonexistent evidence supports creation nor God, because there is evidence against it and even if there weren't the probability would still incline against it. And there is undeniable proof of evolution. Denying that proof only shows you as an idiot you obviously are.
What about aliens?
They exist alright. There are very many other planets in the right spots for life to be possible.
A bit of simple math. (The observable universe, more or less) 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Since life is considered very rare, especially intelligent, then lets take a small percentage (very small). 0,000.000.000.000.000.000.1% - the percentage of stars with (intelligent) life. 200 thousand planets with intelligent life. Rather a lot? There is no evidence, of course, but logic cannot deny it.
As I've said, since Darwin, we have found out a lot more. So you can stop your Darwinism nonsense, okay? You only make yourself seem like an immature and delusional idiot - which you so clearly are.
I'm just gonna not even read the rest, there really is no point... Open your mind to reality. That means thinking yourself, without bias, about everything. Oh, and if you do that then also leave your stupidity and delusions behind the door.
You are wrong. Evolution is a lie and you are delusional.
Your "Evidence" is a all a CONSPIRACY.
A massive scientific conspiracy because scientists are immoral atheists who want to get rich from government funding.
Government funding? Yup, that means they don't even earn their own money, they STEAL it. Just like you're expect from an immoral atheist.
What has science ever done for the world??? Christianity brought us the peaceful Dark Ages, the amazing, glorious and beautiful church, paid for by peasants and the sales of indulgences, religion brought us ORDER and JESUS.
And you just ignore all that with your evolutionist CRAP. "Hurrrr monkeys evolved into humans"
Well, Mr. Evolution. Let's do a little experiment.
Here's some evidence, some mathematical PROOF that you crave so much.
Alright, so if we take the properties of evolution vs no evolution, it's 1:1 odds, right? So 50% chance.
So, if evolution is true, we should expect about 1 out of every 2 monkeys to give birth to a human.
Now, if we assume there are around 5000 monkeys in captivity, and half of those are female, there are 2500 monkeys. If each give birth 3 times, that is 7500 monkeys born in ten years.
...And yet, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is a monkey. Not a single human.
So what we would have expected by this mathematical theory to be about 3650 human births as predicted by "evolution" ended up just being the 7500 monkeys as predicted by common sense AKA creationism.
So who's the dummy now? WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW, ATHEISTS? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA I WINNNNNN
Yup, sounds exactly like religion indoctrinated since birth, which unfortunately also tends to mean no sense of logic or very little of it. Easy to come up with believable fiction, especially if there are so many examples readily observable.
It's good to know there are people like that, even though it is bad there are. They give good ideas, backed up by evidence, for mentally messed up characters to use in fictional stories.
How do you know what your calling evolution is really just succession stages in creation. Think about succesion still occurs naturally throughout many environments how do its just a part of the creation process. According to geological records the carbon levels of the earth has been going down and every time that happen geologist found evidence of newer more adapted forms of life. Maybe evolution isn't really wrong maybe its just misinterperted. I don't belong to any religious organization(mostly because there all full of SH*&) but i still in god because evolution is just a theory. Be honest have you ever found any actual evidence of evolution recently.
The fossil record is often shown in textbooks as a tree trunk with branches growing out of it. While the fossil tree shows horizontal branches which demonstrate the supposed mutation of species into other species, there is is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the existence of horizontal branches. In other words there is no evidence in the fossil record to support the existence of any intermediary species. Theses are know as the missing link, and yet even thought they are missing, they are the cornerstone of the entire theory of evolution.
The missing links in the fossil record were clearly a big problem for Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. But the only explanation he could come up wit was that we have "extreme imperfection" in the fossil record. In Darwin's day only a small portion of the fossil-bearing strata had been investigated and so he lived in the hope of digging would undoubtedly unearth theses missing links. Since 1860 however, virtually every fossil species that have been unearthed has shown that only near-relatives of existing species ever lived. In other cases, unique species were found, unlike any we have existing today. But never have any fossils have been found that can be classified as ancestors or descendents of other species. Never have any missing links, pertinent to the theory of evolution, been discovered
Fossils are quite hard to create so if a species only lived on the planet for a short time (by short time i mean a few thousand years) very few of that species would end up as fossils. Also finding fossils of a certain species is extremely difficult. So either the missing links never died in the right conditions for a fossil to form or we have not found them yet.
I'm talking about a lot of transition fossils. There are certainly more than in Darwin's time, and if they thought the evolution hypothesis was correct then, the theory of evolution is certainly proven beyond a doubt now.
I've done a lot of research lately. I've looked at the transition fossils and it's fascinating.
WRONG. There are, in fact, very very few few true transitional fossils (1-100) showing evolution among a very limited number of animal types, while the the rest of the fossils (100,000=1,000,000) and MOST of the other animal types (phyla) show absolutely NO transitional types. You can't prove evolution by pointing to the few to explain the many.
Just because you got it off of a book instead of the Internet does not mean that you did not plagiarise. According to the OED, plagiarism refers to "the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas of another." As long as you present the ideas of others as your own without crediting the source, you are plagiarising irregardless of whether the source is a website on the Internet, a book, a magazine, a newspaper article or a journal, etc.
How about you shut up and leave me alone and worry about yourself! I can take care of myself. I don't need you or anyone else (besides my parents) telling me what to do.
It would be best if you were offline for a year or more. That would make me and everyone else happy. I hope to not see you again.
You forget this is a public debate. If you don't want others involved in this, PM Reventon. So, as long as the argument is in place in publicly, you have no place to tell me not to get involved.
In other words there is no evidence in the fossil record to support the existence of any intermediary species
All species are in some respects intermediary, this is what evolution teaches.
Theses are know as the MISSING LINK,
Invented term, has no basis in scientific reasoning.
they are the cornerstone of the entire theory of evolution.
How so?
The missing links in the fossil record were clearly a big problem for Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.
No it wasn't, it was barely mentioned in "On the Origin" and was only seized upon by his detractors, not to any avail.
But the only explanation he could come up wit was that we have "extreme imperfection" in the fossil record.
Why would you expect a perfect fossil record? Nature does not work for the convenience of it's explanations. Fossilization is extremely rare, it is a wonder and a testament that we have so many that clearly show a gradual change.
In Darwin's day only a small portion of the fossil-bearing strata had been investigated and so he lived in the hope of digging would undoubtedly unearth theses missing links.
He most certainly did not, and this is also not true about the small number of fossil bearing strata, Darwin himself wrote about the Cambrian.
Since 1860 however, virtually every fossil species that have been unearthed has shown that only near-relatives of existing species ever lived.
I suppose those dinosaurs are near relatives of existing reptiles right?
Or could you explain what animal this is a relative of.
But your author does have one thing right, and that is that there is a close cousin ship with all existing species and those that are extinct, if not there would be no basis for evolution.
But never have any fossils have been found that can be classified as ancestors or descendents of other species.