If evolution is true, then how come there are no fossils showing gradual change to support the theory?

• If evolution is true, then how come there are no fossils showing gradual change to support the theory? If evolutionists want to claim that man and animals evolved for over millions and millions of years from other creatures, how come there are no fossil records showing this gradual change? And not only that, if millions of years have passed, why is that the human and animals havent developed any kind of change now and why are we still the same creatures as was before? If theres anything the Bible teaches us its "Thou shalt not lie or bear false witness." (Exodus 20:16) And I believe that evolutionists are deliberately lying and making up lies in order to support their theories such as "Piltdown man" and Haeckel's lie of Embryology. Why the scientific dishonesty? If you are so confident that your theory is true then why lie about it to make it seem truthful?

• Answer:

  You have been visiting too many lying creationist web sites. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. There is no natural law that all species that have ever existed must be found in the fossil record. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and takes place only under rare conditions. Nevertheless, because of the enormous length of time involved, there are a great many fossils that have been found, and more are being found all the time. Here are some relating to human ancestry. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html And see my answer here for other transitional fossils. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101126131538AAo1LwG&r=w#B5BNXHbANVD4FuV46MSV Furthermore, if the biblical flood had occurred, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are early types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals. In the Cambrian strata, which was laid down long before the time of the dinosaurs, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. Note the appearance of types of organisms over time in these tables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario. In addition, genetic evidence also supports human evolution. About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number. That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome. Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525 The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002." http://www.genome.gov/13514624 These sites explain the finding of the genome projects. http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2 http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.