What About the Fossil Record and Human Evolution?

Here’s an article from Sci Tech Daily promoting human evolution. However, instead of providing evidence in favor of evolution, this article fosters some welcome skepticism.

The first thing that jumps at me is the title: “Accurate Hominin Data: Getting the Fossil Record Right on Human Evolution”. We’re often told that evolution is a well understood scientific fact, making it the best explanation for life’s diversity, but when we examine the evidence, we find that’s a bunch of bluster. And the headline serves as a perfect example. If evolution were truly a scientific fact and so well understood, then the headline contradicts prevailing wisdom; it implies that scientists have not gotten the fossil record right in the first place, and this tells us that evolution is not so well understood after all.

The first paragraph sows more confusion on human evolution as the author states, “Uncovering the evolution of any set of living creatures is a complex and highly meticulous task for researchers, and various theories and approaches that may differ over time may indeed change the fossil record.” Huh? Again, if evolution is true and so well understood, then how can various theories and approaches “change the fossil record”? Evolution, we’re told, has multiple lines of evidence supporting it. But if the fossil record can be so easily changed by various theories and approaches, then it sure sounds like evolutionary theory can be manipulated to a desired outcome, and that should call the entire theory into question.

The author, therefore, encourages other researchers “to take caution on their findings”. Well said!

But it gets better. The peer reviewed paper provides “an important and foundational message.” What is that message? It says, “conclusions drawn from evolutionary models are only as good as the data upon which they are based.” Boom!

Creationists like myself have been trying to get this message out for decades. If the evolutionary models are wrong, then their conclusions will be wrong too. And if evolutionary theory is wrong, then so will their conclusions be wrong.

The article goes on to throw another monkey wrench into evolutionary theory. It says, “the research team proved that many of the fossil dates from the study were wrong”. Wow! Another thing we’re told is that dating techniques can be trusted because that’s ‘science’. But if scientists get “many of the fossil dates” wrong, then maybe dating techniques are not as accurate as some people allege.

According to Professor Carrie S. Mongle, researchers commonly propose new evolutionary ideas that overturn commonly held theories on human evolution, but she cautions that we can’t “make major claims based on piecemeal compilations of the fossil record and questionable data from literature.”

Agreed! I don’t doubt that Professor Mongle is an evolutionist, but she’s echoing exactly what creationists have been saying for decades. Much of the fossil record is incomplete and based on questionable data. Therefore, I’d argue that evolution should not be assumed.

The team who conducted the study did their own research and found that “the estimated timing of species divergences differed by as much as 300,000 years from the previously reported estimates.” This is a very big deal. Why should anyone have confidence in evolution when so many scientists are so demonstrably wrong? Mongle goes on to clarify: “When estimates are off by this much, it can completely change scientists’ interpretations of the evolutionary drivers that made us human.”

Again, this professor is not doubting evolution. But based on her team’s findings, she should. Sadly, she assumes evolution, and therefore, claims it’s just a matter of interpreting the data correctly. I agree that the data needs to be interpreted correctly, but as a creationist, I believe the data is better interpreted when we conclude that humans did not evolve from any other organism other than humans. There are no “evolutionary drivers” that made us human. It was the breath of God (Genesis 2:7) that made us human.

One thought on “What About the Fossil Record and Human Evolution?

  1. I don’t believe any of it. The fossil record includes the last layers 14,000 ft above sea level in the grand staircase and similar layers at 3000ft. Regardless of uplift, it means all of it was underwater. And the same goes for every continent. Not even a giraffe with a plastic straw could handle that for thousands of years as the layers were laid down (supposedly.)

    My theory is that there was a global flood. And that previously man came via a spaceship called, “the New Jerusalem”. It was and is 14,000 miles cubed, about the size of the moon. The moon is very far away, so we do not realize its size. If it landed, it would be scary covering most, or a good portion of the USA. This city (if that is what you would call it.) According to revelations has the now very old, garden of Eden in it and trees and the throne of God.

    Without this information, they have no Idea about the chain of events that brought humans to earth. The Grand Canyon has no boned creatures in its layers, and the Grand staircase only has significant things to our age at the top. (depending on what you see as significant.) Modern birds are not in the fossil record and there are 10,000 species, 8,000 subspecies and its a type of Horizontal free for all evolutionary nightmare. It’s not vertical evolution. Its just DNA that allows a huge variety, and clearly intervention from a God who likes variety, which seems to be the theme.

    I suspect that the sons of God which came down interfered and they also had human DNA such to mate with the daughters of men and that is likely where any variation of design came from. BUT Mitochondrial DNA shows all humans had one mother. Eve. How they think they can add in a timeline to get from some type of Ape to humans is behind me, its all missing, doesn’t seem to have happened. My explanation is more realistic and tangible. The Big City seems to be missing in action now, but maybe it was the star they saw in the East, and maybe that is what Jesus went to when he ascended into heaven.

    I believe Jesus sacrificed his life long before he came to earth, becoming part human, part God. It’s as ghastly as dying on a cross. Others back then might have said, are you crazy becoming human, but I think he looked forward and wanted to love as far as love could love and gave of himself and that is why I think he had to or did come on that “spaceship Jerusalem” And that is how I think it began. He may have made that in our solar system when he made the earth, or it could have been made long before. These are the things inquiring minds want to know. These scientists are just curious people who don’t know as much as they think they know and are missing big chunks. I think we have more of the puzzle together than they do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s