Fossils Create Confusion Within Evolution

One has heard many times over on how the fossil record bares out evolution. On the contrary, it only creates more confusion when invoking the evolutionary framework.  Like in other fields of science, predictions are made then later observations either confirm or falsify these predictions.

It is just mind blogging imagination that runs rampant within these predictions. Take this for an example, evolutionary scientists predicted what insect ears would look like in light of the evolution of bats.  In other words, using survival of the fittest, insects would have less developed ears prior to the arrival of bats. While bat evolution triggered somehow, a more complex ear in insects for their survival.

Sounds logical doesn’t it? In the world of evolution it does, but in the real world nature isn’t designed like that! Nothing in biology in light of evolution gains clarity.  In the Green River formation in Wyoming, scientists discovered an impressive amount of  exceptionally-preserved insect fossils. This created an opportunity to compare the fossil evidence with their prediction. Here is what they revealed… reports on the published article in the Journal of Paleontology which states the following…

“Tympanal ears in insects are important for both intraspecific communication and for the detection of nocturnal predators. Ears are thought, based on modern forms, to have originated independently multiple times within insects and can be found on multiple regions of the body.”

“Here we describe and document the exceptionally well preserved tympanal ears found in crickets and katydids from the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado, which are virtually identical to those seen in modern representatives of these groups. These specimens are among the best preserved insect ears in the fossil record and establish the presence of ears in two major clades of Orthoptera 50 million years ago.”

“Also discussed and evaluated are previously described insect ears from the Mesozoic and the implications of the findings of the present study for studying the evolution of ears within insects.” 

What falsified the prediction is that evolutionary scientists expected a less complex structure of the ear in insects before bats evolved. What they discovered in the real world was the fact that insect ears from ancient times werevirtually identical in size, shape, and position to their modern counterparts.”

They wanted us to believe that insects evolved their ears 17 times in different lineages over many millions of years but the fossil record disagrees, insect ears were designed just fine before bats and the ears are almost the same as the ones in modern insects.  So there was no bat evolution impact on the design nor a slow and gradual process of the ear design from simple to complex over 50 million years in the fossil record.

What happens now? Generally like every falsification of this degree, their pattern is to spin the falsification (along with its 50 million year timeline) into claiming that it is shedding more light or giving hints about insect origins. The only light that is being shed with this discovery is the fact that the fossil record is demonstrating “abrupt appearance” rather than a slow and gradual pattern of evolution.  And “abrupt appearance” in the fossil record favors the creationist model.

3 thoughts on “Fossils Create Confusion Within Evolution

  1. Michael: “And “abrupt appearance” in the fossil record favors the creationist model.”

    Do note that “abrupt” can still mean a long time – certainly longer than 6000 years.
    Furthermore, there is no “creationist model”. It is not a model, but a religious believe. That is quite a different kettle of fish.

  2. Michael does not know what “abrupt” means in geological terms. For example, the reason why scientists have called the so-called “Cambrian Explosion” abrupt is because, if it happened, it was around 25 million years……abrupt in geologic time, but not so much in biological terms.

    The earth is 4.6 billion years, so……in that perspective, tens of millions of years is “abrupt.”

  3. The earth is 4.6 billion years, so……in that perspective, tens of millions of years is “abrupt.”

    We must remember that literalists exalt form over substance. “Abrupt” means no more and no less than what Michael can conceive that it means. If a paleontologist admits that he was wrong as to when insect ears first flourished, then all of evolution is wrong..

    Creationism was birthed in ignorance, and still values it above all else. In the early 20th century. even so-called biblical literalists had no problems with evolution or with an old earth. Then, in the 1920s, a movement kno3wn as “naive literalism” rebelled against concepts that had become too complex for them to understand, that were too abstruse for their simplistic backgrounds. None of their leaders had any formal education—not in science, not in theology, not in anything.

    And they reacted against the concepts that were beyond them. Higher criticism became a target in theology, evolution infuriated them in science.

    To this day, they champion ignorance and denigrate learning of all kinds.

    \So where did “creation science” come from? Naive literalists were content to tear down evolution, until the courts held that evolution could not be excluded from the public schools. So they hit upon the idea of equal time for “other theories of origins.” But there were no other theories. So they invented creation science in an effort to place a cloak of pseudo-knowledge around what was otherwise a purely religious belief.

    This is why it all comes back to “belief” for creationists. They would rather merely encourage ignorance, but realize that—especially today—too many people would laugh. So they persist in attempting to find scraps of science that can be distorted to their belief system.

    But you can see the underlying preference for ignorance in creationists’ lack of any research projects designed to confirm their beliefs. They simply don’t care about establishing any theories or facts of their own. All they want is for everyone else to remain as ignorant as they are.

    And it is imperative that everyone else believe as they do. Otherwise, their God will crumble, like Ozymandias of old.

    For this reason, creationists are particularly enraged at professing Christians who accept evolution. It is said that a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry with someone. How can one person embrace both belief and knowledge? Another concept beyond the comprehension of creationists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s