Which History Does Fossils Represent?

A recent statistical analysis was published in Science which suggests the fossil record does in fact reflect a realistic version of the history concerning life on earth. Biodiversity has been a curiosity with Paleontologists who are concerned with bias conclusions and wonder if the fossil holds a true representation.

The publication discussed what Darwin had mentioned about the lack of transitions discovered in the fossil record and hoped someday it will all be cleared up (which is a common threat among many evolutionary theories).  As they put their  concern this way, “less than one percent of extinct species are represented in the fossil record.” Less than one percent? That is impossible unless one assumes there were supposed to be missing transitions in-between as required in evolutionary ‘theory.’

The study compared various creatures and other parameters such as marine sedimentary rock formation, sea level, and isotopes of carbon, oxygen, sulfur, and strontium in order to see how they are related. Researchers discovered a way in which sedimentary rock is laid down where it does correlate with species diversity because both are related to “other geological forces.”

Peters writes, “Raup was right, in that there is a strong correlation between the variable rock record and fossil diversity, but he was wrong about the meaning of that correlation. It exists because the biosphere actually responds to the environmental changes that are responsible for producing variability in the marine sedimentary rock record.”

It is quite clear, the fossil record does not show transitional species with evolution of various kinds morphing into new creatures from common ancestral predecessors. The researchers are simply assuming the biodiversity found in the fossil record demonstrates it which is circular reasoning.

While the uniformitarian presuppositions are a faulty framework,  Peters does confirm something of value in what creationism had predicted… He says, “The biosphere actually responds to the environmental changes that are responsible for producing variability in the marine sedimentary rock record.”

Indeed it did 4,300 years ago! In creationism, we believe catastrophic changes in the environment was responsible for in having an effect on the biodiversity of creatures discovered in the fossil record but not the evolution of those life-forms, only the order in which they were buried!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Which History Does Fossils Represent?

  1. While the uniformitarian presuppositions are a faulty framework, Peters does confirm something of value in what creationism had predicted… He says, “The biosphere actually responds to the environmental changes that are responsible for producing variability in the marine sedimentary rock record.”

    Indeed it did 4,300 years ago! In creationism, we believe catastrophic changes in the environment was responsible for in having an effect on the biodiversity of creatures discovered in the fossil record….

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE

    Creationism has never predicted the effect stated in Michael’s bold-face sentence. In what way did creationists ever “predict” that global-flood (i.e., catastrophic) environment changes led to biodiversity of had any effect on it whatsoever? Cite your sources.

    Yet another example of Michael’s reckless disregard for the truth. He wishes it to be true, so he makes it up.

    .

    Creationism has never predicted anything that was not already known at the time of the prediction. Creationism is inherently incapable of predictions. Creationists have never preformed any experiment to test their theories. Creationists are afraid to test their theories.

  2. Michael asks, “Which History Does Fossils Represent?”

    This question is irrelevant to what he discusses in this post. It is, however, relevant to the recent study[1] finding that the gorilla genome found that 30% of the gorilla genome is closer to the human genome than to the genome of the chimpanzee, which evolutionary biologists claim to be our closest extant relative.

    Way has Michael not pounced on this apparent refutation of a central tenet of human evolution? Is he afraid to? Does he know what awaits?

    ==============

    [1] Scally A, Dutheil JY, Hillier LW et al. (2012) Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence. Nature 483:169-175

  3. A question for Michael: How does anything in the Ars Technica article, or in the underlying Science paper[1] support in any way any theory of special creation? How does anything tend to falsify any aspect of evolution? What are the different “histories” in the title of this post? The purpose of the study is to show there is only one history.[2]

    Paleontologists had wondered whether variations in the diversity of fossils was due to sampling error—that is, that some environmental conditions favored fossilization, while others did not, thus giving a biased picture. The Science paper used a statistical analysis to weed out this sampling error.

    What the authors found was that the diversity of the fossils mirrors the actual diversity of species existing at those times. Now how in God’s green earth does that support creationism, or falsify evolution?? Can anyone see any connection whatever? As usual, Michael’s reading comprehension is sub par.

    No wonder scientists laugh at creationists. Lame, Michael; lame.

    ===================

    [11] Hannisdal et asl, “Phanerozoic Earth System Evolution and Marine Diversity,” (science 334:1121-24 (11 Nov 2011)

    [2] Biodiversity does vary with environmental conditions. This is obvious, and is predicted by complex system theory.

  4. . . . . . . . . . . . . Which History Does Fossils Represent?

    I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE. For 11 days now that title has grated like a sharp rock in a shoe.

    Michael, please fix the grammar in this title: “Which History DO Fossils Represent?”

    Your home-school teacher probably told you that the verb agrees with the first noun in the sentence. But she’s wrong. The verb agrees with the subject of the sentence. Which in this case is “fossils.”

    I even tried to justify your usage in that you may have considered “fossils” to be a collective noun here. But it simply didn’t work. Besides, I don’t think you know what a collective noun is.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s