What The Fossils Say

by cofty 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Fossilisation usually takes hundreds of thousands of years-- it is the replacement of the bony parts of a dead creatures by silt, sediment and mineralising water passing through the original structures and becoming petrified i.e. becoming rock by virtue of lengthy time periods and pressure within the earth's crust.

    Then it is only 1% of fossils which die in a place where fossilisation could possibly take place. Skeletons therefore are rare in the fossilised state compared to the population which had lived.

    If creationism were true, how would it be? The only fossil remains would be of the same species which are alive today-- and since creationism is one consequence of taking the Bible literally, nowhere near enough time would have passed for fossils to fossilise!

    So what the hell are the trillions of fossils of extinct animals doing embedded in the earth's crust--if not by biological evolution and geological processes over vast epochs of time?

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Image result for petrified cowboy boot

    Here's a recent fossillized foot found still in a boot.

    Here's a petrified dog named Stuckey who got stuck in a tree in the 1960's

    Related image

    This island looks old.

    Image result for Surtsey Island Vegetation

    But it was formed in the 1960's. It was named Surtsey Island.

    Coal, diamonds and Opals can all be created in weeks, not "epochs" of time.

    How long do you think it took for this fossil to form?

    Image result for fossil of fish eating another fish

  • hooberus

    So far at least 3 evolutionists on this thread have claimed that 99 percent of species have gone extinct. One even claimed that this is the reason that they were “convinced” of evolution.

    I asked “What is the direct evidence for this claim”

    It’s very clear what I was specifically referring to.

    I stated it multiple times.

    I did NOT ask “What do evolutionists claim about mass extinctions, Permian extinctions etc. (Cofty kept posting evolutionist claims about this).

    I then specifically asked Cofty:

    “Why don’t you tell us the estimated number of living species and the number of extant fossil species? Then, if the number of extant fossil species is not 99 times the number of living species, please explain how the 99 % figure is obtained. Or just admit that you don’t know how it is obtained.”

    His response post NEVER gave the number of fossil species.

    Maybe because it’s embarrassing to his case (as it’s only commonly cited as 250,000).

    So let’s say for simplicity sake that there are 5 million living species.

    In order for there to have been a “99 percent” extinction rate, then 495 million species would have had to have gone extinct.

    Yet the number of fossil species is only 1/4 of 1 million.

    Which means that evolutionists are claiming almost 2,000 extinct species for each known fossil species!

    (Not a population of 2,000 of each species, - but 2,000 additional species per each known fossil species!).

    “99.9” percent extinction rate would be a whopping 20,000 claimed extinct species for EACH KNOWN fossil species.

    So as I said before, If the number of extant fossil species is not 99 times the number of living species please explain how the 99% figure is obtained.?

    Or just admit you don’t know how it’s obtained.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    Of life's 4 billion years, the majority of it has not had complex life forms. The earliest fossils are of bacteria.

    Most life forms never formed fossil remains. Most of today's complex life forms do not have fossil records.

    Evolutionary science is based on a range of skills, not just the physical remains, many of which are calcified outlines, not the actual animal, fish, bird, etc.

    Which of the evolutionary sciences have you researched? Which books have you read related to evolution that are based on quantum mechanics and on punctuated equilibria?

    How many scientific books do you own which deal with evolution?

    What do you believe Tiktaalik tells us?

    If evolution is not true, do you want me to go to the outback of my country and accept the myths of the Australian Aboriginals? Were the ancient Egyptians correct? Or the Romans? Or the Indians? You open a veritable Pandora's Box if you wanted to accept supernatural mysticism. I live in a country that is proud of its scientific achievements.

    When I told a visitor this afternoon that there were some people in USA who accepted the two Creation myths in the Hebrew Scriptures, she was absolutely shocked.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Geologists find the record is highly uneven. Species appear very suddenly, then show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly they disappear. The majority of fossils show stability over extensive lengths of time.

    Unique body plans with new features suddenly appear. More than half of all major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.”

    The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains. It may represent the most important evolutionary event in the history of life on Earth.

  • cofty

    Hooby I gave you a specific explanation of extant (c. 8 million) and extinct (>5 billion) species and linked three peer-reviewed papers that explain in detail how these figures are arrived at.

    One of the best arguments against creationism is to let people witness the dishonesty of creationists. You are an outstanding example.

    Sea Breeze - It would literally take you five minutes to educate yourself on the difference between petrification and fossilization.

    Evolution is a Fact - Ignorance is a choice.

  • cofty

    One of the biggest gulfs that life has had to cross was the transition from sea to dry land.

    Fish have conical shaped heads, reptiles have flat heads. Fish have no necks; their heads are attached to their shoulders by a series of bony plates. Land-dwelling animals all have necks; their heads can move independently of their shoulders. Fish have scales and fins, land animals have limbs with fingers, toes wrists and ankles. Fish use gills to breathe under water, land-living animals have lungs to breathe air.

    These sound like insurmountable problems, but if evolution is true there must have been creatures that made the leap successfully. In 2004 Neil Shubin and his team set themselves the challenge of finding exactly this transitional fossil. What they discovered was astonishing.

    Their success was not entirely down to good luck. The critical time period was already known. Fossils from rocks 385 million years old all look like fish, younger rocks dated at 365 million years old reveal fossils that are all recognisably amphibian or reptile. To find a relative of the transitional species between fish and land-dwelling animals Shubin knew he had to concentrate on rocks that were 375 million years old, preferably laid down in an ancient river or stream and which were now exposed on the surface.

    Initially Shubin and his colleague Ted Daeschler were looking at Alaska and the Yukon as a potential site but when Daeschler examined a geological map he came across a diagram that that in Shubin’s words took their breath away. It showed a region in of the Canadian Arctic that fulfilled all the criteria they were looking for. It had a large layer of exposed Late Devonian rock of exactly the right age. The rock had been formed in a freshwater delta and even better it was previously unexplored by vertebrate paleontologists.

    In the end it took four expeditions to Ellesmere Island over a period of six years to find what they were looking for, but when they did it exceeded all expectations. It would hardly be possible to make up a fossil more perfect as a transition between fish and land-living animals than Tiktaalik.

    Like a fish it has scales on its back, gills and fins with webbing for paddling. Unlike any fish it has a flat head with eyes on top like a crocodile as well as sharp teeth and well developed jaws. It also has ribs, lungs enabling it to breathe out of water as well as a neck that allowing it to move its head independently of its shoulders.

    The most interesting feature of Tiktaalik is in the bones inside its front fins. As well as fish-like ray bones it has an arrangement of sturdy bones that you would recognise from any tetrapod alive today. Think about the bones of your limbs, we have a large bone – humerus or femur; two smaller bones – radius and ulna or tibia and fibula; a collection of smaller bones – carpals or tarsals and then our digits – fingers or toes. All limbed creatures from whales to penguin to birds and horses have variations of the same basic arrangement. Here, 375 million years ago was a descendant of a fish that had already evolved this body plan. The joints are all there too with a shoulder, elbow and wrist.


    When the details were studied more closely something astonishing was discovered. The structure of the bones in Tiktaalik’s wrist indicated that he could do push-ups. The elbow was capable of bending like ours and the wrist could bend so the lower end of the limb was flat on the ground. Close examination of the shoulder bones and the underside of the upper arm revealed massive crests and scars where large pectoral muscles attached.

    Imagine Tiktaalik, up to 9 feet long in shallow pools surrounded by even bigger predators. It was a fish-eat-fish world. One survival strategy was to get bigger and get armour, Tiktaalik stumbled on an alternative – get out the water.

    Look at your hand, open and close your fingers, flex your wrist back and forward. You are using joints that first appeared inside the fins of a fish like Tiktaalik.

    This is only one story about transitional species - there are plenty more. The lineages leading to modern whales and horses are particularly rich in transitional forms. What makes this story so amazing is that Shubin and his team didn’t just stumble on Tiktaalik. They used what was already known about evolution and geology to make a prediction. They knew that the transition from fish to land happened 375 million years ago. They knew where rocks of this age were to be found and they went to that place and found precisely what they predicted must exist.

    Contrary to creationist claims there is an embarrassment of riches of fossils but Tiktaalik ranks as an A-List celebrity in the zoo of ancient creatures.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    What conclusions did you reach when you studied the mitochondria?

    What are your sources?


  • slimboyfat

    Fossils don’t “say” anything because they lack consciousness and the ability to speak. (Unless we admit the possibility of panpsychism, in which case fossils may have a low level of awareness, but still doubtful ability to communicate.)

    Whatever interpretation of the meaning of fossils is imputed by us is within the context of our culture, which is always changing. So we may find that what the fossils “say” today may be different from what they say in twenty or a hundred years from now, when the configuration of human understanding of the world may be somewhat different.

  • cofty

    No SBF the fossils will always say that extant species evolved from earlier, now extinct ones. The precise details of taxonomy will have been refined but paleontology and genetics will still prove common ancestry beyond all doubt. Even in a million years that will still be true. And the earth still won't be flat and rocks still won't be conscious.

Share this