Oops. Forgot the front cover.

  • kent_eh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    How do they attempt to argue that the existence of fossils contradicts evolution by natural selection?

    The usual claim is that because fossils don’t show every single intermediary step that they can’t possibly be showing evolutionary change.

    Yes, that arguement is as stupid as it seems.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah it’s like arguing that a jigsaw puzzle isn’t real, despite seeing it laid out before them completely assembled but missing 6 or 7 of the hundreds of puzzle pieces.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      19th century writers did us no favors when they started using ‘missing link’ to describe gaps in the human fossil record. Creationists ran wild with the idea that there is such a thing. Of course, now we have countless examples of transitional fossils and understand that evolution is not just jumping from one species to another species with well-defined separators between those two species, subverting the whole concept of a ‘missing link.’

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      A lot of dinosaurs I grew up learning about never even actually existed; they just came to be because archeology played fast and loose with the bones and was just making shit up.

      I could see that being used against it also.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It wasn’t that long ago that I learned that brontosaurus wasn’t a thing. Also, I guess there’s a new ocean and one less planet? 🤷🏻‍♂️