Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Member (Idle past 5858 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005

Message 1 of 2 (291492)
03-02-2006 12:55 PM

I am currently engaged in a debate with a Creationist who holds that transitional fossils are not proof of evolution after I posted this
. His example goes thusly:
"If I pulled a fossil of a chimp from 5000 years ago and a compared it to the
skull of a man I can make the conclusion that one came from the other because of
similarities, but I would have no proof of that only an assumption based on a
preconceived idea."
My response was this:
"As fossilisation is an extremely rare process, it's not really suprising that smooth
transitions are also rare. But they still exist, like the hominid skulls I showed. You know
as well as I do that 5000 years is too short a scale, and in this case it's being
manipulated because for some reason, the bloke pulling up the chimp fossil cannot see
chimps today and thusly have his hypothesis falsified, and cannot see the humans from
5000 years ago.
What's your explanation for the hominid skulls if not evolution? Did the different species
of hominids just happen to leave fossils that, when taken in a chronological order, show
(what appears to be) an evolutionary sequence?"
Am I responding to him correctly? Thoughts?

Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003

Message 2 of 2 (291544)
03-02-2006 4:37 PM

Thread copied to the Transitional fossils not proof of evolution? thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024