What Missing Fossils May Reveal About Evolution | Derek Turner

Missing fossils? We're lucky to have found any fossils. There should always to challenges to the status quo, but DNA technology leaves little to no doubt that the current theory of evolution is on solid ground.

One of the reasons why materialistic classical science is so successful is because it restricts itself to limited questions. However, we are reaching a point now when we can observe that science is revealing a far more complex universe than we first observed or imagined especially in Darwin's time. Evolution is a world view to which there is no other materialistic alternative - hence the dogma surrounding it. An attitude of adhering to a particular hypothesis because science is bound by a purely materialistic approach - now seems a little primitive and naïve and actually contradicts what materialistic science is supposed to be doing - that is - following the evidence or lack of where it leads instead of making up alternative hypotheses to support limited or no evidence. This bias is not scientific - it's scientism.

Charles Darwin was concerned that the Cambrian explosion—the geologically abrupt appearance of most major animal phyla around 530–540 million years ago—contradicted his theory of gradual evolution. He acknowledged in The Origin of Species that the lack of ancestral fossils before this period was a serious problem, stating that the sudden appearance of life forms was a valid argument against his view of slow, incremental change. Over 160 years later, this problem still exists. Charles Darwin wrote: “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This quote appears in Chapter 6 ("Difficulties on Theory") of Charles Darwin's seminal 1859 book, On the Origin of Species.

Stasis is evidence of environmental stability, not evidence that evolution isn’t hard science. That’s why no one takes this seriously.

I hate this guy’s presentation and his feeling the need to even address the fossil record as anything but extraordinary. I’m shocked he wouldn’t lead with explaining the frame rate of fossilization. Fossilizing conditions are naturally rare. Those two facts alone explain why anything near continuous capture of dead forms is comical to demand.

You are talking about evidence of absence as if it were absence of evidence. No fossils of juveniles in a rock layer suggests that juveniles did not die there. That's evidence! Of absence. Similarly, the apparent gaps, interpreted as leaps in punctuated evolution, ought to suggest that the gradual changes took place somewhere where fossils don't form as easily.

The physical Constructal Law is a paradigm shift in the science of evolution.

Derek Turner argues that absence in the fossil record can itself become evidence for competing evolutionary theories. At what point do you think an absence becomes scientifically meaningful rather than simply incomplete data?

You only find old dinosaurs because the young keep moving about. And the old lie still on the ground after they die. That is why. Or there were no natural disasters happening. Or indeed they looked different. The other explanation could be the young ones grew up so fast you never found any fossils of them. Because there was no time for it to happen. And after that they ate all the young there was. That is why they got extinct. Not laying on the earth after being eaten. . Not because their genes could not addapt that fast. To the changed environment after the meteorite. Or exactly that drove them crazy too. * Fish also eat their offspring from habit. Is it because their environment contains too little food? Before that it did not for the dinosaurs. But since they grew up that big that fast, they always kept feeling hungry. And while reptile brains have no empathy they still ate their offspring. . It is in their constitution. So what happened here? It is true they always ate their offspring (and layed only a few eggs). So they would always go extinct/ if it was not for their numbers making up for it. There were always too many around, especially of the smaller types. Which layed more eggs. So that is why only they survived. They lived in colder areas. And they could not find their offspring anymore. Even though they grew up very fast elsewhere from baby to adult. There was no time anymore to find all of their offspring after their bellies were filled already. Or otherwise grew up too fast before being ripe to lay more eggs (the two probabilities exclude each other). When they remained small they could not have eaten all their offspring due to the numbers. But when they grew up very fast by chance because of the local climate. In result they layed only a few eggs. Extincting themselves/ amplified by the cold weather after the meteorite fell to the earth. They ate all to be found. Pure coincidence. Or template cross dependence. The frase "They as a species died out" is incorrect. The meteorite only killed the old, or big ones. Who layed only a few eggs. They ate their children already preparing for their own Extinction. No question about their genes. But the meteorite only amplified that. Made it happen in less time. Because before that they were growing up that fast from small types into larger ones, especially when there was that much more food around all of a sudden. . Driven by the tropical temperature (marshes elevate CO2 levels amplifying plant life: their food). Now they could have eaten all their babies. Laying less eggs. You can check that by looking at the environment. Dinosaurs were not everywhere around to be found. * Mammoths were found with daisies between their teeth. So also they (although mammals now) must have been caught by surprise. The area they were in must have been green at the time. So in retrospect one could prove whether the earth's axis (pole position) was not where it is today. But off target.

Perhaps there are a variety of ways that evolution works. Sometimes nothing much happens, sometimes a lot. We don't need to stick to one idea. Let's have many ideas.