Fossils prove evolution?
Well, as we have said elsewhere on this blog, Charles Darwin himself said that if his theory of evolution was’nt backed up by the fossil record then he is wrong. Darwin said this over 150 years ago when fossils were just beginning to be found. Darwin did expect the fossil record to show fossils of lots of living species we still have today captured in a time frame of transition from simple organisms to the current living states of the species.
According to Graeme Lloyd of the University of Bristol, UK, “In terms of the number of individual fossils there are probably countless billions. Most large Natural History Museums will have a collection of several million. However, as you probably know there will be multiple specimens for most species. For example we have lots of different fossils of T. rex, these even have names like ‘Sue’ and ‘Jane’. The number of different kinds of fossils (species) is much less, I think the figure is a few hundred thousand. In reality there were probably many more species in the whole history of life, but many of these never left a single fossil and others have yet to be dug up.” (ref: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1408)
So how many fossils do we have proving evolution took place?
Absolutely none, not even one.
Richard Leakey himself summed up the problem on a Walter Cronkite Universe program, when he said that if he were to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a large question mark. And he added that, not only was the fossil evidence far too scanty for any real certainty about anything related to man’s evolutionary origins, but there was little likelihood that we were ever going to know it.
David Pilbeam is the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard university and curator of paleoanthropology at the Peabody museum of archeology and ethnology. He is a member of the National Academy of sciences. He received his Ph.D. from Yale university.
David Pilbean said,
“My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole but the whole subjest of paleoanthropology. But introductory books-or book reviews-are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, to slippery, for it to be able to mould our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and idealogy than about about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy“