Does fossil evidence support evolution?
Fossils are like the clues the police use to solve a crime. Together they paint a picture of the truth - in this case the truth is evolution
Each one tells a story. Like clues to a crime, where the police don't have to find a print of every footstep taken by a subject or confirm every thing that he did, the clues paint a logical outline of all the events around the crime.
Like clues in a crime the police do not initially identify a person they want to pin the crime on and then seek to tie him to the event - they find a number of clues which identify potential subjects of interest. They then attempt to prove the relation of these suspects to the crime until the trail of evidence is strong and dependable. Usually multiple facts on the same evidence are considered - for a crime it might be fingerprints and video tape and eye witnesses, for fossils it could be carbon 14 and dendrochronology and geologic strata.
Answer The fossil record is the primary source of evidence of past life forms. The fossil record is also an important source of evidence of evolution. However, Charles Darwin was able to develop his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection largely without reference to fossil evidence. He saw evidence for evolution in present life forms. Another source of evidence for evolution is to be found in DNA.
Molecular evidence: similar proteins and genes found in closely related species, even if those genes are not used by an organism. Fossil evidence: organisms changing form over time through the fossil record. Direct observation of evolution: Traits in a population can be measured over time, as they change from one generation to the next, evolution occurs because that is the definition of evolution. Three types of evidence are: fossil, biological, and genetic.
Does the fossil record support the idea of evolution or the idea that God created each kind of plant and animal individually?
Is it true that homologous and analogous structures are some of the types of evidence that support the theory of evolution?
Because it is one of the better pieces of evidence for showing the long trail of evolution and we are talking millions of years long. Molecular evidence is also becoming stronger and the accepted standard for evidence now-a-days, but cannot tell us as much about ancient fossils. The change of the whale, for instance, over time brings the point home--natural process drove this evolution.
The fossil record is not needed to prove that evolution occurred. In fact, Charles Darwin formulated his Theory of Evolution without reference to the fossil record. The fossil record does allow scientists to see just how evolution really did happen. They can place fossils in sequence so that they can see the progression, over time, from an earlier species to much later ones. As transitional species are found in the fossil record, they can be…
Evidence supports a model in which periods of relative stability are punctuated by short periods of rapid (relatively speaking) change. It could, theoretically, be possible for evolution to proceed in a gradual manner. However, mathematical modelling and fossil evidence show that punctuated equilibrium is the norm.
It doesn't, really. Think, why haven't we found any fossils of all of those "missing links," but plenty of the animals in between? It means there never were any missing links. Also, fossils don't just form, there has to be some kind of natural cataclysm like a volcanic eruption or flood. If you ask me, all this fossil evidence supports the creation account. Honestly, it's far more logical than evolution.
Actually, it is the strongest evidence for evolution. Without one fossil we would know from the DNA evidence that evolution has occurred and is occurring. It is in the DNA of organisms that we see the strongest evidence for common ancestry. The products of those genes are sometimes highly conserved down the ages. Ribosomes, the workbenches on which proteins are made, differ hardly at at between you and pets.