Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

FAQ Send Feedback Sign Up Login

Paleontology Evolution Science Topic Index

Add Expert Opinion Edit Question Edit Implications History

Is the theory of evolution falsified by fossil evidence?

Critics of the theory of evolution point to anomalies and gaps in the fossil record. Advocates of evolution say that if evolution was false, we would see vastly more contradictory fossil evidence.

Implications to Other Questions

Did complex life evolve through the process of natural selection?

Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)

Agree

Encyclopedia

Conservapedia Christian Encyclopedia

Agree

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. ...today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums. If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".

Edit Pitches

10 Mar 2010 Source

Conservapedia Christian Encyclopedia

Agree

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.

Edit Pitches

21 Dec 2011 Source

Experts In Alternative Medicine

Deepak Chopra Inventor of Quantum Healing

Agree

How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no "missing link" can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic molecules turned into DNA. ... If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations -- those that lead to new species -- and so few negative ones? ... How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by the fossil record ... to our embarrassment....

The Incoherent Pitch The Ignored Evidence Pitch

Edit Pitches

23 Aug 2005 Source

Experts In Creationism

Phillip Johnson Law Professor

Mostly Agree

The fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true.

Edit Pitches

01 Jan 1992 Source

Disagree

Experts In Science

Richard Dawkins Evolutionary Biologist, Writer, Atheism Activist

Disagree

The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction. British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." They've never been found. Nothing like that has ever been found. Evolution could be disproved by such facts.

The Overwhelming Evidence Pitch

Edit Pitches

30 Apr 2005 Source

Kenneth Miller Biology Professor, Christian

Disagree

The [Tiktaalik] is one of the most vivid transitional fossils ever discovered. It had well preserved scales on its back and web fins just like a fish. It has a flat head with eyes on top which is an early amphibian characteristic and it had actual limbs to support the body. You couldn't get a better intermediate if you tried. ... The more fossils we dig up, the better the evidence we have for this evolutionary transition.

Edit Pitches

07 Nov 2008 Source

Encyclopedia

Wikipedia World's Largest Encyclopedia

Disagree

...the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to knowledge of evolutionary transitions, making many of the "missing links" missing no more. ... Proponents of creationism have frequently made claims about the existence or implications of transitional fossils that some of the scientific community considers to be false and misleading. Some of these claims include: 'There are no transitional fossils.' ...[and]... 'No fossils are found with partially functional features.'

Edit Pitches

10 Mar 2010 Source

Suggested Expert Quotes

Fred Williams

"Evolutionists own words reveal convincingly that the fossil record does not support evolution. Consider the following predictions (or expectations) of the fossil record if evolution were true": 1) Gradualism 2) Simple to complex 3) Clear-cut lineages 4) Identifiable common ancestors Now consider the predictions of the fossil record if special creation is true: 1) Sudden appearance 2) Fully formed 3) Stasis All of the predictions for evolution have failed miserably, while all of the predictions for creation have been overwhelmingly borne out by the evidence. For each of the individual predictions above, it is very easy to find an evolutionist scientist who substantiates the creationist viewpoint for that particular prediction.

Source

Comments

Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)

0 Points blacktrance 10 Feb 2011 Stance on Question: Disagree

The evidence is quite clear on this.

-1 Point Joe prince 05 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Agree

What is called scientific evidence by hard core evolutionists is in reality a combination of very tenuous theories and extrapolations arrived at by using faulty or limited forms of dating methodology. The truth of the matter is that advocates of evolution display a very peculiar unscientific fanaticism in their cherished assumptions, as much and more so than advocates of any given religious belief system, thereby severely hindering their theoretic platform.

True science will not arrogantly postulate, but will rather make clear the numerous uncertainties and weaknesses contained in any unproven theory. We don't see such humble attitudes among evolutionists today. Those who academically challenge the theory of evolution are doing real science a favor. At the same time they are exposing the blind fallacy of propping up this paradigm as though it, and it only, is the sole legitimate answer to origins and the explanation of life on earth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." - Soren Lovtrup

"The doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is, in essence, a metaphysical claim.... Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb." - Smith, Wolfgang, Teilhardism and the New Religion: Tan Books and Publishers, 1988, Rockford, Illinois, p. 24

“Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." - Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box (1996), page 26 Reference given is to: Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, pp. 379-381 Which references: American Zoologist, 30:861-875 (1990)

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths.” - Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977): Evolution of Living Organisms

0 Points Benja 06 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

Let's mirror:

-
What is called scientific evidence by hard core creationists is in reality a combination of very tenuous theories and extrapolations arrived at by using faulty or limited forms of biblical methodology. The truth of the matter is that advocates of creationism display a very peculiar unscientific fanaticism in their cherished assumptions, as much and more so than advocates of any other religious belief system, thereby severely hindering their theoretic platform.

True science will not arrogantly postulate, but will rather make clear the numerous uncertainties and weaknesses contained in any falsifiable theory. We don't see such humble attitudes among creationists today. Those who academically challenge the theory of creationism are doing real science a favor. At the same time they are exposing the blind fallacy of propping up the creationist paradigm as though it, and it only, is the sole legitimate answer to origins and the explanation of life on earth.
-

-1 Point Joe prince 06 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Agree

Yes, That is the extent of the evolutionists scientific credibility. A non-sequitur comeback. Your mirror response doesn't follow, and it certainly doesn't make a solid case for carbon dating reliability.

Creationists don't claim scientific proof of creation. And creation is not a science. It is a faith based on writings and philosophical reasoning. Creationists merely question the scientific validity of evolution by scientifically questioning the reliability of dating methods and other evolutionary assumptions.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i6f.htm

Creationists obviously come from different religious and philosophical backgrounds. Some believe the Koran, others the bible, and still others have their own ideas of a creation origin. But they all agree that pure evolution is its own fanatical belief system and is more philosophically theory based than scientifically proven.

0 Points Benja 07 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

Let's mirror again!

-
Yes, That is the extent of the creationists scientific credibility. A non-sequitur comeback. Your response doesn't follow, and it certainly doesn't make a solid case for creationism.

Evolutionists don't claim faith-based proof of evolution. And evolution is not faith. It is science based on observation and reasoning. Evolutionists merely question the scientific validity of religion by scientifically questioning the reliability of religious methods for acquiring knowledge and other religious assumptions.

--

P.S. Creationist scientists DO claim scientific proof of creation.
P.S.S. There is a separate page for debating carbon dating here.
P.S.S.S. This question is about fossil evidence and you haven't addressed that issue at all. If you refuse to not to address the issue at hand, expect to get moderated.

-1 Point Joe Prince 20 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Agree

Let’s see. O.k.

I know there are some creationist which claim scientific proof of creation. Most likely they are referring to ID. But I am not one of them, and their are many of us who don’t. We hold to scriptural revelation, and don’t mind the research on evolution continuing, provided that it is scientifically straight forward.

Also, if I’m not mistaken, isn’t carbon dating, and geologic dating of columns, one of the main methods for verifying fossils? Yes? If so, a statement on carbon dating would be relevant here. Nevertheless, what about this:

" The fossil is dated by the rock layer it is in. The rock layer is dated by the fossil that is in it."

"Evolution was ‘assumed’ when the column was built. Now the column supports evolution!"

It’s sort of like a man going back in time and fathering a child who will then father the one who went back in time originally.

On your mirror response:

I’ll just apply a perpetual mirror ‘ditto,’ thereby establishing a consistent positive reset to the mirrored reversal of my original posts, and set it at ad infinitum to all corresponding responses and reversals which are applied to any and all my postings.

“It is not so much the reflections - which can show us part of the way when properly evaluated - but much more the original light that shows us the whole way...”

And that includes fossils.

-1 Point Joe Prince 23 Aug 2010 General Comment

circulus in probando: "a circle in a proof."

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.

"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organism as has been determined by a study of theory remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."—*R.H. Rastall, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10 (14th ed.; 1956), p. 168.

A good essay on this topic ~ How Exactly Do They Date Fossils?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92841

0 Points Benja 24 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

Not bothering to check if an expert has been quoted out of context undermines this website. You can find the context for O'Rourke's quote here.

-1 Point joe prince 30 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Agree

The charge of “quote mining” is a serious charge. Both creation and evolution advocates do it either out of carelessness or deliberate design. However, in this case the charge is false, and appears to be a maneuver for lack of any genuine scientific rebuttal.

First and foremost the O’Rourke quote pertains to the greater context of the whole issue, i.e., It dove tails with many similar statements and confessions made by other specialists on the topic, and in this respect is very much in context. Secondly, the polemic (you cited) did not adequately distinguish any alleged contradiction between the O’Rourke quote used, and how it was used, vs. the full context of O’Rourke’s treatise. i.e., O’Rourke’s full treatise, with the quote in context, doesn’t do anything to resolve the circular dating problem and make it go away. Finally, geologists and paleontologists have always used arcane, highly technical terminology, explanations for this practice, but it all circles back to circular reasoning based on the general assumption of evolution, followed by the assumptions of the geologic columns and fossil placements. And that’s where the top begins its complicated wobble-spin.

Because then we find anomalous and index fossils which are not suppose to be in a particular stratigraphic layer, and radiometric readings of columns which contradict the assumed age of the columns. And quite often when the radiometric process is rebooted it merely contradicts all the previous readings. So we have fossils where they’re not suppose to be, and rocks where they’re not suppose to be. All of this is being fueled by the theoretical general assumption of evolution, and carried away by a series of subset assumptions, which are nothing more than stubborn puzzle pieces which quite often don’t fit together with, or in, the original picture of the general assumption like they’re suppose to.

A couple of sites for reviewing, for those interested:

How Exactly Do they Date Fossils?
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92841

This one is highly technical, but interesting, as the author is being honest about the problematic barriers still plaguing geologists on exactly how to date rocks.

Stealing Time: http://www.palass.org/modules.php?name=palaeo&sec=newsletter&page=38

0 Points Benja 31 Aug 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

Let's mirror!

The charge of “quote mining” is indeed a serious charge. Indeed both creation and evolution advocates do it either out of carelessness or deliberate design. However, in this case the charge is true, and appears to be a maneuver for lack of any genuine scientific rebuttal.

First and foremost the O’Rourke quote fails to pertain to the greater context of the whole issue, i.e., It fails to dovetail with many similar statements made by other specialists on the topic, and in this respect is very much out of context. Secondly, the polemic (you cited) did not adequately distinguish any alleged consistency between the O’Rourke quote used, and how it was used, vs. the full context of O’Rourke’s treatise. i.e., O’Rourke’s full treatise, with the quote in context, does resolve the circular dating problem and make it go away. Finally, creationists have always used arcane explanations on this issue, but it all circles back to fallacious reasoning based on the general assumption of creationism, followed by their assumptions of the geologic columns and fossil placements. And that’s where the top begins its complicated wobble-spin.

Because then we fail to find anomalous and index fossils which are not suppose to be in a particular stratigraphic layer, and fail to find radiometric readings of columns which contradict the assumed age of the columns. And quite often when the radiometric process is rebooted it merely confirms all the previous readings. So we have fossils where they’re supposed to be, and rocks where they’re supposed to be. All of this is being fueled by the theoretical general assumption of creationism, and carried away by a series of subset assumptions, which are nothing more than stubborn puzzle pieces which quite often don’t fit together with, or in, the original picture of the general assumption like they’re suppose to.

-1 Point joe prince 02 Sep 2010 Stance on Question: Agree

That's about all you have is a cheap trick mirror, which is not really a mirror at all but rather a photo negative, i.e., a negative image of the original positive post. I'm sure most readers can see through your ridiculous mirror rebuttal. So keep pulling out your silly trick mirror. How silly it is. The tricky mirror guy.

Starting off with an opening statement, calling attention to other related matters pertaining to fossils, viz, carbon dating, radiometric dating, rocks and fossil dating each other, et.al. is a valid preliminary procedure.

Now to the main question - the fossil record: IT IS CONCEDED, THE GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD DON’T UNEQUIVOCALLY DISPROVE EVOLUTION. BUT HERE’S ANOTHER NEWS FLASH: THEY DON’T UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVE IT EITHER!

For the past hundred and fifty plus years the attempt to find legitimate, provable, fossil transitions, in the theory of evolution have met with dismal failure. According to Darwin, if minute gradualism of speciation is not found in the fossil record someday, then the whole theory is in crisis. Well, the whole theory is in crisis. And instead of honest confessions coming from much of the science community on fossil disparities and the lack of any real proof of gradualism, the public is fed with counterfeit logic, trumped up explanations, weak extrapolations and speculations, and a gradual degrading of the empirical process, the only gradualism which is being uncovered.

The illusion is continually spun that the gaps are being closed with the uncovering of new fossils, but this is all abstract wishful thinking, and text book dishonesty. The truth of the matter is, that the more fossils, in the cambrian era, and other strata, which are being found, the more complications arise for the fossil record, and to the theory of evolution in general. The gaps in reality are not closing; and at the same time all other assumptions of evolution are taking ‘genuine’ scientific empirical beatings as well. The cherished theory is all turning out to be a chasing of the wind, or trying to catch the proverbial carrot on a stick. But by all means continue researching, for the matter must be scientifically and comprehensively conclusive.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/48/65/

Rebuttals from evolutionists against the above article are wanting; and so called debunkings are quite vacuous. Challenging articles, like this Truth in Science piece, ask genuine questions, such as, “If the fossil record is not showing the minute transitions in species, that Darwin himself insisted must be there, how can anyone possibly intellectually claim it is a provable record for evolution?” Instead, numerous pro-evolution responders to all such inquiries choose to either apply the aforementioned weak extrapolations and speculations, or hunt for ulterior motives, secret designs, and the religious agenda of creationists. etc.. Now there’s real science.

0 Points Benja 03 Sep 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

"That's about all you have is a cheap trick mirror"
In the mirror responses, are all the classy tricks you use too.

P.S. I'm not inclined to mirror your TEMPER.

P.S.S. I apologize for mirroring, but it's just that your arguments are so good, that they work for both of us!

For the past hundred and fifty plus years the attempt to find legitimate, provable, fossil transitions, in the theory of evolution have met with [dismal failure | resounding success]. According to Darwin, if minute gradualism of speciation is not found in the fossil record someday, then the whole theory is in crisis. Well, the whole theory [is in crisis | met that challenge]. And instead of honest confessions coming from much of the [scientific community | creationist community] on [so-called] fossil disparities and the lack of any real proof [of | against] gradualism, the public is fed with counterfeit logic, trumped up explanations, weak extrapolations and speculations, and a gradual degrading of the empirical process, the only gradualism which [is being uncovered | creationists are comfortable with].

The illusion is continually spun that the gaps [are being closed | remain] with the uncovering of new fossils, but this is all abstract wishful thinking, and text book dishonesty. The truth of the matter is, that the more fossils, in the cambrian era, and other strata, which are being found, the [more | less] complications arise for the fossil record, and to the theory of evolution in general. The gaps in reality are [not] closing; and at the same time all other assumptions of [evolution | creationism] are taking ‘genuine’ scientific empirical beatings as well. The cherished theory of [evolution | creationism] is all turning out to be a chasing of the wind, or trying to catch the proverbial carrot on a stick. But by all means continue researching, for the matter must be scientifically and comprehensively conclusive.

0 Points Benja 20 Aug 2010 General Comment

I'd say your thorough examination of the fossil evidence resolves this debate once and for all.

1 Point Benja 22 Apr 2010 General Comment

A creationist was trying to claim a gap in the fossil record (two species without an intermediate fossil having been discovered). When an intermediate species was discovered, the creationist responded, "Aha! Now there are two gaps."

-1 Point David 12 May 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

Evolution of horses........... according to ........ Evolutionistssmall horses evolved into big horses in at least 7 stages. Then again some might have been linked to Hippos ??
then sometimes in certain rock strata two or more of the horses would be found together, then larger or "Later" horses found in older rock than smaller "Earlier more primitave three toed" horses......... confusion reigned and evolutionsits got wet.
Then there is the differences in Rib pairings 18 then the next 15 and then 19 and then 18.

And then some wag of an archaologist in Florida went and dug 7 different evolutionary models up all at one time in one location in one rock strata.

Evolution or were they just 7 different species?

-1 Point trenton tennant 07 May 2009 Stance on Question: Disagree

if birds evolved from dinosaurs people could have evolved from apes!
Trenton Tennant 15 years old ft. campbell Ky

0 Points Adam 25 Jul 2011 Stance on Question: Agree

I totally agree with you Trenton. If birds could evolve from dinosaurs then people could have evolved from apes.

0 Points Louie Brown 15 Apr 2012 General Comment

Dr. Scott Woodward of BYU in his studies of dinosaur DNA has shown that there is no relationship between dinosaur DNA and bird DNA, so you'll have to come up with a different argument.

-2 Points James63 01 Dec 2008 Stance on Question: Agree

The fossil record is false. These paleontologists and archaeologist use a faulty dating method. They measure the ground around the fossil or specimen because the fossil is totally contaminated by the matter around the fossil. Thus if you measure the age of the material around the fossil, you are not measuring the fossil date. You are measuring the date of the rocks, ground, dirt, sand, hardened lava and such. If you fall on the ground and die standing on a 12,000,000 year old strata, and the sand covers you and hardens to a rock, then they did up your bones 3,000 years later and they measure the age of the strata you were standing on they would say your bones are 12,000,000 years old, the same date as the strata you were standing on when you died.

All fossil dating is false, therefore evolution is falsified, because it can never be show to be true, They do not know which came first the ape or the man and all the 5 million year old fossils could just as easily be 2,000 years old. This "science" is full of holes and fallacies.

0 Points Dr. Stark 13 Sep 2011 Stance on Question: Disagree

Rather, if you were buried on a 12 million year old strata, the sediment that buried you would be different than the 12 million year old sediments. Besides, 3000 years from now, they will probably have settled the debate already!

0 Points Radarbuilder 03 Jul 2011 Stance on Question: Disagree

That is an extraordinarily inane assessment of a rigorous science that has existed for 150 years. The simple fact that you've made this statement suggests that no cogent, factual argument will ever suffice for you. Hence, it's simply folly to try....

0 Points Benja 16 Sep 2008 Editorial Comment

This question is a good example of a supporting question for any question regarding the truth of a scientific theory. I.e. each supporting question asks whether evidence X falsifies the theory.

0 Points David Jarvis 12 May 2010 General Comment

Coelocanth a fossil supposedly the change point from Fish to amphibian.......... 70,000,000 years extinct and nayone who finds one will do so in rock supposedly 70,000,000 years old. Must have been a shock when someone caught one alive and well, not only that but many more since and all of them identical to the fish that was supposedly the link between fish and Amphibian. So why no evolution of that fish?

0 Points RNMacLeod 28 Jan 2011 General Comment

First off Coelocanth is a family of fish. Secondly Evolutionary theory does not state or imply that all species must evolve. A species may be separated geographically to the point that the two populations of the species do not interact with each other. In on of the populations the species is adapted almost perfectly to the environment that they are in and they do not face any selective pressures that would make them evolve, thus they experience very little if not any evolution. (we call these living fossils) Now the other population of the same species is living in an environment that over time experiences many changes and provides many selective pressures thus the species experience lots of evolution end eventually become unrecognizable to its "Cousins" that didn't experience evolution to the same extent.

0 Points Benja 12 May 2010 General Comment

Your reasoning is a good example of The Common Sense Pitch and The Ignored Evidence Pitch.