Show Me the Fossils!

[Seymour Flops]

I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.

So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).

Here's an example from Scientific American, no less:

OK, that is pretty convincing, right? The face is relatively flat, rather than elongated as are the faces of most animals who rely more heavily on sense of smell than do humans. But the brain case is relatively small, a more ape-like trait. Viola! The long sought Missing Link!

But . . . look at the fine print:

It's a composite reconstruction. It's a drawing of how the artist imagines a collection of bone fragments might look IF it were one complete skull. Now this seems a pretty skilled drawing. Not a Da Vinci, but the work of a competent commercial artist. But that artist was not given a collection of bones and told, "draw us what these bones would look like." Or if they were, of course they would have asked, "what are you going for here?" The quick answer: "You know, an ape-man. The missing link."

I picture the artist saying, "So, Luca Brasi meets Mighty Joe Young. Gotcha."

Anyway, to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

Thank you.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

 

[occupied]

The evolution of humanity from more ape like hominids is a proven fact.

 

[progressive hunter]

The evolution of humanity from more ape like hominids is a proven fact.

and yet you cant post any of that proof,,

 

[rightwinger]

In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist

Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about

EVOLUTION

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nice paintings above and bone fragments filled in with modelling material below. Exactly the opposite of what I asked for, plus no explanation of how they prove Darwinian evolution.

Nice . . . try?

 

[progressive hunter]

In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist

View attachment 594799
Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about

EVOLUTION

anything is complex to you so your opinion means nothing,,

 

[Seymour Flops]

In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist

View attachment 594799
Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about

EVOLUTION

That Troglodite looks pretty complex to me.

How is it simple, other than being relatively small?

 

[rightwinger]

anything is complex to you so your opinion means nothing,,

Run Away!
Run Away!

You claim no fossil evidence can be provided
When it is, you…..


Run Away!
Run Away!

 

[rightwinger]

That Troglodite looks pretty complex to me.

How is it simple, other than being relatively small?

No brain, no backbone, no organs

 

[progressive hunter]

No brain, no backbone, no organs

sounds pretty complex if it can survive without those things,,

 

[Indeependent]

It's hilarious watching YouTube videos on those trying to prove evolution.
In the meanwhile, almost every physicist on YouTube is admitting that due to new technologies that allow them to examine everything down to the quark, they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about.

 

[Indeependent]

No brain, no backbone, no organs

Nobody asked you to describe yourself.

 

[Indeependent]

sounds pretty complex if it can survive without those things,,

RWers does.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Fossils?

Ok..........................

 

[Seymour Flops]

In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist

View attachment 594799
Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about

EVOLUTION

That Troglodite looks pretty complex to me.

How is it simple, other than being relatively small?

No brain, no backbone, no organs

First of all, that is a Trilobite, not a Troglodite. A Troglodite is a hypothetical primitive caveman. The word is often used as an insult. I won't fault you too much for that slip, since I didn't catch it myself at first.

There is no brain, backbone, nor organs visible in the fossil you show, which is preserved impression in rock formed by compressing sand in the ocean. But clearly, an animal like that had organs. It had no spine, since animals with exoskeletons don't have spines. Not sure how that means it is "simpler."

Terminology[edit]​

As might be expected for a group of animals comprising c. 5,000 genera,[68] the morphology and description of trilobites can be complex. Despite morphological complexity and an unclear position within higher classifications, there are a number of characteristics which distinguish the trilobites from other arthropods: a generally sub-elliptical, dorsal, chitinous exoskeleton divided longitudinally into three distinct lobes (from which the group gets its name); having a distinct, relatively large head shield (cephalon) articulating axially with a thorax comprising articulated transverse segments, the hindmost of which are almost invariably fused to form a tail shield (pygidium). When describing differences between trilobite taxa, the presence, size, and shape of the cephalic features are often mentioned.

During moulting, the exoskeleton generally splits between the head and thorax, which is why so many trilobite fossils are missing one or the other. In most groups facial sutures on the cephalon helped facilitate moulting. Similar to lobsters and crabs, trilobites would have physically "grown" between the moult stage and the hardening of the new exoskeleton.

Cephalon[edit]​

See also: Cephalon (arthropod anatomy)
Morphology of the trilobite cephalon

The major subdivisions of the cephalon

The subdivisions can be further broken down into different areas used in describing trilobite cephalic morphology. 1 – preocular area; 2 – palpebral area; 3 – postocular area; 4 – posterolateral projection; 5 – occipital ring; 6 – glabella; 7 – posterior area; 8 – lateral border; 9 – librigenal area; 10 – preglabellar area
A trilobite's cephalon, or head section, is highly variable with a lot of morphological complexity. The glabella forms a dome underneath which sat the "crop" or "stomach". Generally the exoskeleton has few distinguishing ventral features, but the cephalon often preserves muscle attachment scars and occasionally the hypostome, a small rigid plate comparable to the ventral plate in other arthropods. A toothless mouth and stomach sat upon the hypostome with the mouth facing backward at the rear edge of the hypostome.

Hypostome morphology is highly variable; sometimes supported by an un-mineralised membrane (natant), sometimes fused onto the anterior doublure with an outline very similar to the glabella above (conterminant) or fused to the anterior doublure with an outline significantly different from the glabella (impendent). Many variations in shape and placement of the hypostome have been described.[61] The size of the glabella and the lateral fringe of the cephalon, together with hypostome variation, have been linked to different lifestyles, diets and specific ecological niches.[8]

The anterior and lateral fringe of the cephalon is greatly enlarged in the Harpetida, in other species a bulge in the pre-glabellar area is preserved that suggests a brood pouch.[69] Highly complex compound eyes are another obvious feature of the cephalon.

Trilobite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of all the unscientific nonsense presented as "proof" of Darwinian evolution, this technique of calling some organisms "simple" and others "complex" and placing them in a timeline that "shows" evolution from simple to complex is the silliest. If Trilobites were complex enough that different types of them had different lifestyles, that hardly seems to show proof of evolution from simple to complex.

Even if it did, how does that prove Darwinian evolution and eliminate evolution by design?

Clearly, some of you read the title of the OP and thought, 'so, just show a fossil and I win? Ok, here's one . . . '

 

[alang1216]

I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.

So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).

Here's an example from Scientific American, no less:

View attachment 594783
OK, that is pretty convincing, right? The face is relatively flat, rather than elongated as are the faces of most animals who rely more heavily on sense of smell than do humans. But the brain case is relatively small, a more ape-like trait. Viola! The long sought Missing Link!

But . . . look at the fine print:

View attachment 594786

It's a composite reconstruction. It's a drawing of how the artist imagines a collection of bone fragments might look IF it were one complete skull. Now this seems a pretty skilled drawing. Not a Da Vinci, but the work of a competent commercial artist. But that artist was not given a collection of bones and told, "draw us what these bones would look like." Or if they were, of course they would have asked, "what are you going for here?" The quick answer: "You know, an ape-man. The missing link."

I picture the artist saying, "So, Luca Brasi meets Mighty Joe Young. Gotcha."

Anyway, to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

Thank you.

I think the answer is there will never be 'proof', only evidence. Right now the overwhelming scientific evidence is that all (or almost all) life today is descended from a common ancestor. In short we all evolved. There is no science, be it anthropology, geology, biology, etc., that is in conflict with that. Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated. Newton was right about gravity but Einstein showed it was more complex than Newton theorized.

Bottom line is that EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found supports the theory of evolution. No other theory comes close. You can attack Darwin but you need an alternative theory to be taken seriously.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think the answer is there will never be 'proof', only evidence. Right now the overwhelming scientific evidence is that all (or almost all) life today is descended from a common ancestor. In short we all evolved. There is no science, be it anthropology, geology, biology, etc., that is in conflict with that. Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated. Newton was right about gravity but Einstein showed it was more complex than Newton theorized.

Bottom line is that EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found supports the theory of evolution. No other theory comes close. You can attack Darwin but you need an alternative theory to be taken seriously.

not a single fossil proves evolution,, they only proved something died and got buried,,

 

[Hollie]

I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.

So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).

Here's an example from Scientific American, no less:

View attachment 594783
OK, that is pretty convincing, right? The face is relatively flat, rather than elongated as are the faces of most animals who rely more heavily on sense of smell than do humans. But the brain case is relatively small, a more ape-like trait. Viola! The long sought Missing Link!

But . . . look at the fine print:

View attachment 594786

It's a composite reconstruction. It's a drawing of how the artist imagines a collection of bone fragments might look IF it were one complete skull. Now this seems a pretty skilled drawing. Not a Da Vinci, but the work of a competent commercial artist. But that artist was not given a collection of bones and told, "draw us what these bones would look like." Or if they were, of course they would have asked, "what are you going for here?" The quick answer: "You know, an ape-man. The missing link."

I picture the artist saying, "So, Luca Brasi meets Mighty Joe Young. Gotcha."

Anyway, to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

Thank you.

Photographs of fossils as well as the physical evidence is available all across the web.

Would you find it shocking to learn that T-Rex exhibits, for one example, are typically not assembled from rock, calcified bones as the exhibit would literally weigh many tons.

That might not have been conveyed at the Benny Hinn madrassah.

Here's one source you could have found yourself.

Museum of Paleontology | U-M LSA Museum of Paleontology

lsa.umich.edu

It might be helpful if you contacted the myseum and provided the data you have acquired as a way to refute the fossil record as one, large global conspiracy of those evilutionist, atheist scientists.

Be sure to copy us on your email to the museum.

 

[Indeependent]

Photographs of fossils as well as the physical evidence is available all across the web.

Would you find it shocking to learn that T-Rex exhibits, for one example, are typically not assembled from rock, calcified bones as the exhibit would literally weigh many tons.

That might not have been conveyed at the Benny Hinn madrassah.

Here's one source you could have found yourself.

Museum of Paleontology | U-M LSA Museum of Paleontology

lsa.umich.edu

It might be helpful if you contacted the myseum and provided the data you have acquired as a way to refute the fossil record as one, large global conspiracy of those evilutionist, atheist scientists.

Be sure to copy us on your email to the museum.

No museum is going to itself out of business.