t f p g+ YouTube icon


Bookmark and Share

August 6, 2009 Tags: History of Life

Today's entry was written by the BioLogos Editorial Team. You can read more about what we believe here.

A common criticism of evolutionary theory is the apparent lack of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record. If evolution were true, argue opponents, why do we not find more fossils that "link" different species together? Isn't evolution a dubious theory until we find more of these "missing links"?

While scientists have identified the fossils for over 250,000 different species, we must realize that this is but a tiny fraction of the number of species that have existed on earth (less than 1% in fact). The fossil record, after all, is based on fossils, and fossilization is a rather rare occurrence. When they die, organisms tend to decay rather than petrify. Only when an organism dies in the right place at the right time can fossilization even have a chance of happening. For certain species -- such as sharks whose skeletons are cartilage rather than bone -- the chance of fossilization becomes slimmer still.

Furthermore, when we do find fossils, they are statistically far more likely to come from large, unchanging populations of creatures. In contrast, transitional species are far more likely to occur in smaller populations. Thus, the rarity of fossilization, compounded with the smaller populations of transitional species, means finding transitional fossils on a regular basis is highly unlikely.

In his book Coming to Peace With Science, Darrel Falk compares our current fossil record to a collection of 250,000 random aerial snapshots of America. While these pictures may offer some interesting information, they certainly would not provide a complete picture of the country. There would be only a 1 in 4 chance that even one photo contained the image of a person. The chances of capturing a major landmark -- like the Capitol or White House -- would be smaller still. Similarly, the chances that the fossil record would consistently find transitional fossils are not very high.

Regardless, the fossil record has provided us with glimpses into our evolutionary past through the few transitional species it has found. While it certainly does not provide a complete picture, combined with other findings such as genetic evidence, the fossil record makes a strong case for the validity of evolutionary theory.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
David Larsen - #36466

October 25th 2010

The great mystery of why the fossil record shows no real transitions from different phyla is explained by they just have not found them??  Goldschmitt and even Stephen J. Gould both recognized the deep and profound meaning of a lack of a fossil record that favored a gradual evolution.  They both proposed that evolution takes massive “leaps” that would not leave these transitional fossils.

1) There are no known “advancement” mutations.  Mutations don’t create greater complexity.  Any mutation that would give a species greater advantage are typically the deletion of certain cellular processes or the use of different pathways.  If you disagree with my assertion, please list the mutations that create greater complexity.  If you can list five observable “creative” mutations that are responsible for improvements of survivability, I’ll apologize for my wrongheadedness.
  The lack of transition fossils can be answered with the simple answer..they don’t exist because natural selection does not account for creation of new phyla of organisms. 

2)  Massive leaps in the genetic code resulting in new species is at best hopeful and at worst a desperate attempt to explain the lack of fossil evidence.

Hope this helps.

Page 1 of 1   1