The Fossil Record Provides Scientific Evidence for Macroevolution

Format:(1) Opening Statements(2) Rebuttals(3) Counter-Arguments(4) Rebuttals(5) Closing ArgumentsRules:(1) No plagiarism(2) No semantics(3) No arguments in the comment sectionDefinitions:SCIENCE:Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through the scientific method [1].EVIDENCE:The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid [2].THEORY:The scientific terminology for a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment [3].EVOLUTION:The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, genetic drift, migration, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation [4]. MACROEVOLUTION:Major evolutionary change, especially with regard to whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time [5].SPECIES:A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding [6].LIFE:Any organism exhibiting all or most of the characteristics typically associated with life, including growth, adaption, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, response to stimuli, and cellular composition [7].FOSSIL RECORD:The totality of fossilized artifacts and their placement within the earth's rock strata [8].________________________________________________________________________________________________Transitional FossilsContrary to popular creationist claims, there exists an immensely rich abundance of transitional fossils, all of which provide strong and compelling evidence of macroevolution [9]; however, despite the overwhelming acceptance of such fossils within the scientific community, many creationist groups have (to no avail) attempted to refute the legitimacy of these remarkable remnants of earth's biological history.Given the fact that there exists much too many fossils to discuss adequately within an 8,000 character limit, I shall focus this round primarily on discussing transitional hominid and horse fossils.Current evolutionary theory teaches (and overwhelming evidence suggests) that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans [10]; as such, we should expect the fossil record to exhibit organisms which are morphologically intermediate between humans and chimpanzees, and it does.Figure 1.0 Provided by http://www.talkorigins.org...As can be clearly seen from the above image, there certainly exists fossils of past organisms which exhibit a mixture of human and ape-like characteristics, thus fulfilling the prediction of evolution theory. (In-depth information on these fossils and more can be obtained from http://humanorigins.si.edu...).Furthermore, the following figure also reveals a few transitional horse fossils:Figure 1.0 Provided by http://en.wikipedia.org...As the above image clearly demonstrates, the fossil record is strongly indicative of the fact that modern day horses descended from three-toed, dog-sized creatures.Fossil ChronologyIf the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is correct, we should expect the geological order in which fossils appear in the Earth's strata to be consistent with the standard phylogenetic tree [11]; for example, seeing as how homo sapien sapien arrived after homo habilis, we should not observe homo sapien sapien fossils in the earliest strata layers in which homo habilis appears [12].However, seeing as how the fossil record is incomplete, a small margin of potential error should be expected. For example, Dr. Douglas Theobald has stated concerning the matter:"Based on the fossil remains of modern species and the known gaps in the current paleontological records of extinct species, the observation of transitional species "out of order" by 40 million years should be fairly common. This degree of "play" in the fossil record is actually rather minor, considering that the fossil record of life spans between 2 to 3.8 billion years and that of multicellular organisms encompasses a total of 660 million years. An uncertainty of 40 million years is equivalent to about a 1% or 6% relative error, respectively— rather small overall [13]."With this, it is interesting to consider the continued statement of Dr. Theobald:"...within the error inherent in the fossil record, prokaryotes should appear first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc...Contrary to the erroneous (and unreferenced) opinions of some anti-evolutionists, studies from the past ten years addressing this very issue have confirmed that there is indeed a positive corellation between phylogeny and stratigraphy, with statistical significance [14]."Dr. Theobald also provides another interesting example, stating:"An early analysis published in Science by Mark Norell and Michael Novacek examined 24 different taxa of vertebrates (teleosts, amniotes, reptiles, synapsids, diapsids, lepidosaurs, squamates, two orders of dinosaurs, two orders of hadrosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, higher mammals, primates, rodents, ungulates, artiodactyls, ruminants, elephantiformes, brontotheres, tapiroids, chalicotheres, Chalicotheriinae, and equids). For each taxa, the phylogenetic position of known fossils was compared with the stratigraphic position of the same fossils. A positive correlation was found for all of the 24 taxa, 18 of which were statistically significant...Additionally, if the correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy is due to common descent, we would expect the correlation to improve over longer geological time frames (since the relative error associated with the fossil record decreases). This is in fact observed. We also would expect the correlation to improve, not to get worse, as more fossils are discovered, and this has also been observed [15]."Therefore, it becomes quite evident that fossil chronology clearly confirms and supports the theory of evolution.Neanderthal DNAAlthough humans are not a descendent of homo neanderthalensis, both species are closely related.Moreover, Neanderthals were relatively advanced; for example, the Smithsonian Institute states:"Neanderthals made and used a diverse set of sophisticated tools, controlled fire, lived in shelters, made and wore clothing, were skilled hunters of large animals and also ate plant foods, and occasionally made symbolic or ornamental objects. There is evidence that Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead and occasionally even marked their graves with offerings, such as flowers [16]."Creationists generally assert that Neanderthals must have been human; however, now that the entire genome of homo neanderthalensis has been sequenced, it has become blatantly evident that such claims are simply wrong. Speaking on the matter, the Smithsonian Institute states:"The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA...Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions [17]."Therefore, given their DNA, homo neanderthalensis fossils provide powerful evidence of macroevolution.________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://dictionary.reference.com......[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com......[3] http://en.wikipedia.org......[4] http://www.biology-online.org......[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com......[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com......[7] http://en.wikipedia.org......[8] http://www.biology-online.org...[9] http://www.talkorigins.org...[10] Ibid.[11] Ibid.[12] Ibid.[13] Ibid.[14] Ibid.[15] Ibid.[16] http://humanorigins.si.edu...[17] Ibid.