The Significance of Fossils on Evolution

The significance of fossils on evolution

• The significance of fossils on evolution — and the presentation of bones, then identifying the ancestor and descendant —

is in reality a philosophy and not an observational and experimental science.

In fact, the matter is scientifically and rationally impossible.

For example, “presenting two bones and then identifying the ancestor and descendant — based on the assumption of evolution — then constructing an evolutionary narrative from this assumption and ending with the validity of evolution”

does not go beyond the fallacies of:

Begging the question

The fallacy of circular reasoning

🧠 The problem is that this implication begins with invalid premises that are based on the following structure:

Premise 1 : If evolution were true, then this would be an ancestor and this is a descendant.

Premise 2 : This is an ancestor and this is a descendant.

Conclusion : Therefore, evolution is true.

As you can see, this does not go beyond the fallacy of circular reasoning,

in addition to a premise that requires the validity of evolution to construct a narrative about the relationship between ancestor and descendant.

📌 This is what paleontologist Dr. Gareth Nelson realized:

🪫 “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to experimentally recover the descendant sequence of an ancestor, be it species, genera, families, or whatever, was, and remains, a pernicious illusion.”

He concluded that:

🪫 “Taking a series of fossils and claiming that they represent a lineage is not a testable scientific hypothesis, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — entertaining, perhaps instructive, but not scientific.” (1)

🪫 Therefore, we can excuse the philosopher of science Karl Popper for seeing evolution as a metaphysics that is neither observational nor empirical. (2)

🪫 Second: Evolutionary intermediates

Among the most important arguments cited in support of evolution are transitional forms and evolutionary intermediates .

Although I prefer to leave a detailed discussion of them for a later time,

and I do not need to discuss them since I have destroyed any suggested significance of fossils,

I prefer to make a few points in this article.

🧬 Evolution assumes a gradual transition of species,

from which a huge number are derived, sufficient to fill the Earth’s layers with transitional fossils.

This is logical in terms of overcoming errors and invalid initial premises for evolution,

since the existence of random evolutionary paths necessitates this.

However, we find only a few filters,

and these filters, as in human evolution, are mostly:

• Distorted

• Misinterpreted

• Fraudulent

• Or incomplete

🔍 ○ For example, in the case of human evolution:

■ Lucy’s fossil:

• Which the pioneers of the theory of evolution are trumpeting —

we only found forty percent of her skeleton,

and it was scattered in a hill without any evidence that she was from the same species.

However, we find documentaries and drawings spread about her in scientific magazines

that make you think that she was found mummified and in excellent preservation,

and all of that is based on the assumption of evolution. (4)

■ Neanderthal:

• Was misinterpreted and made a special species,

even though research shows its closeness to us. (5)

■ Homo habilis:

• Then it was found — despite being considered a Homo —

that it is closer to the southern apes. (6)

🪫 This is for the purpose of representation only,

and we will discuss it in detail, God willing, the Almighty, the Majestic,

in detailed articles in the series.

🪫 What unequivocally refutes the previous claim

is the emergence of numerous groups of animals without any previous ancestors or evolutionary intermediates —

what are called biological explosions , which are widespread and in prevailing patterns in the fossil record.

Among the most prominent examples of them are:

• The Cambrian explosion , from about 540–515 million years ago. (9)

A group of protists arose suddenly without a gradual transition from their supposed ancestors.

For example, diatoms suddenly appeared in the fossil record of the Early Jurassic period, about 182 million years ago,

and were published in the famous journal Nature . (10)

• The distinctive Mediterranean body plan of jellyfish and their complex life cycle with a sessile polyp stage and a free-swimming medusa stage

also arose during the Cambrian explosion . (11)

🪫 This not only refutes the alleged fossil evidence

but also strikes at Darwin’s theory itself and its assumptions.

🪫 Evolutionary bias in interpreting fossils

Now:

Due to the lack of transitional forms, evolutionary scientists have found no way but to perform cheap tricks based on their evolutionary bias,

so they have invented intermediate forms from their sac — based on forged fossils.

This is a very common case among evolutionists —

to falsify fossils based on the assumption of evolution.

Examples of this include:

• The Acinonyx kurteni scandal , which was published by PNAS ,

then turned out to be a fake after it was an evolutionary icon. (12)(13)

• The Pitdown Man scandal . (14)

There are literally hundreds, even thousands of fossils

that were falsified and published in prestigious journals —

just because they provide imaginary transitional forms in the evolutionary mind.

🪫 Here we have the right to ask:

❓ Why should we trust the transitional fossil evidence of evolution

if thousands were published for the purpose of an evolutionary bias

after being adopted by scientific journals?

Sources

(١)Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History” (1969), in David M. Williams and Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography,” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004), 685-712

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01063.x

(٢)Sober, Elliott & Elgin, Mehmet (2017). Popper’s Shifting Appraisal of Evolutionary Theory. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 7 (1):31-55.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691119

(٣)Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., p281-282,

(accessed August 23, 2020).

(٤)Donald Johanson‏، Maitland Edey،Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind،p18

(٥) Balzeau, A., Turq, A., Talamo, S. et al. Pluridisciplinary evidence for burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal child. Sci Rep 10, 21230 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77611-z

{Embed}

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77611-z

Pluridisciplinary evidence for burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neande…

Scientific Reports - Pluridisciplinary evidence for burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal child

أيضا راجع :

Dirk L. Hoffmann et al. ,Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 years ago.Sci. Adv.4,eaar5255(2018).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.aar5255

و غيرها من الأبحاث تتبث سلوكا معقدا للنياندرتال يتبث كونهم من نفس نوعنا.

(٦)Wood, B. Who is the ‘real’ Homo habilis?. Nature 327, 187–188 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1038/327187a0

(٧)قال ستيفن جاي جولد في ورقة علمية له منشورة في جامعة كامبريدج ” “إن غياب الأدلة الأحفورية للمراحل الوسيطة بين التحولات الكبرى في التصميم العضوي، وفي الواقع عدم قدرتنا، حتى في مخيلتنا، على بناء وسائط وظيفية في كثير من الحالات، كان مشكلة مستمرة ومزعجة للتفسيرات التدريجية للتطور”

Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology, 6(1): 119-130 (1980).

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/abs/is-a-new-and-general-theory-of-evolution-emerging/335835E76222A5B8E2784E6B36787969

(٨)Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of

Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p759

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/9780674417922/html

{Embed}

https://doi.org/10.1038/327187a0

Who is the ‘real’ Homo habilis?

Nature - Who is the ‘real’ Homo habilis?

{Embed}

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/abs/is-a-new-and-general-theory-of-evolution-emerging/335835E76222A5B8E2784E6B36787969

Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? | Paleobiology |…

Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? - Volume 6 Issue 1

{Embed}

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/9780674417922/html

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

The world’s most revered and eloquent interpreter of evolutionary ideas offers here a work of explanatory force unprecedented in our time—a landmark publication, both for its historical sweep and for its scientific vision. With characteristic attention to detail, Stephen Jay Gould first describes the content and discusses the history and origin…

Kufrcleaner Library 📚 - 『⚛』evolution-criticism - The significance of fossils on evolution [1389480957249191957].txt_Files\product-9b5e92ceec0f14b6

(٩)Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 59 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).

(١٠)Bryłka, K., Alverson, A.J., Pickering, R.A. et al. Uncertainties surrounding the oldest fossil record of diatoms. Sci Rep 13, 8047 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35078-8

(١١)Justin Moon el all, A macroscopic free-swimming medusa from the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2022.2490

(١٢)Richard Stone ,Altering the Past: China’s Faked Fossils Problem.Science 330,1740-1741(2010).

DOI:10.1126/science.330.6012.1740

(١٣)Wang X 2013. Mortgaging the future of chinese paleontology. PNAS 110(9), 3201. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301429110

(١٤)Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Piltdown man”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Mar. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Piltdown-man https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691119

{Embed}

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35078-8

Uncertainties surrounding the oldest fossil record of diatoms

Scientific Reports - Uncertainties surrounding the oldest fossil record of diatoms

{Embed}

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Piltdown-man

Piltdown man | Discovery, Fossils, & Facts | Britannica

Piltdown man, proposed species of extinct hominin (member of the human lineage) whose fossil remains, discovered in England in 1910–12, were later proved to be fraudulent. The fossils generated a controversy that lasted more than 40 years, and it was one of the most successful hoaxes in the history of science.

🪫 We add to what we have mentioned a strong semantic criticism of the invalidity of the evidence of fossils for evolution :

When we say that a fossil is considered evolutionary evidence — assuming its validity —

this is not the result of a straightforward experimental methodology,

but rather the result of the interpretive sense .

That is, the criterion here for the validity of a theory based on a fossil

is not a criterion that unifies the interpretative necessity in evolutionary mechanisms.

The relationship here is of the type of cognitive taste .

🪫 That is, the indication here is of the ideality of the theory (i.e., that the theory is ideal),

and not of its validity .

📌 Note :

The relationship between direct observation , induction , and abduction is in this order:

• Direct sense : observing the cause and then the effect ✅

• Induction : repeating the sensed (called experience) ✅

• Interpretive analogy : the possibility of returning from the effect to the cause due to their coexistence in habit and previous experience = reliable explanatory theory ✅

Fossils, whatever they may be, do not provide this explanatory system.

I Want to Address Today Some of the Falsifications of Fossils by the Followers of Superstition to Make Them Fit with Evolution

🪫 In this article , I want to do a quick review of the most important fossil forgeries made by Darwinists to support the gradual Darwinian model and gradualism —

which has been the main prediction of Darwinism since Darwin’s time until the present day.

As many know, the main assumption of evolution is the gradual appearance of living organisms in soil layers through thousands of Darwinian transitional forms.

“As Darwin said, an infinite number of transitional forms.” (1)

However, decades of excavation in the soil have not revealed these thousands.

Rather, we see the sudden appearance of living organisms without any previous transitional ancestors —

which Stephen Jay Gould described as a prevailing condition in the fossil record. (2)

Or we see the appearance of organisms in a period that does not allow them to evolve from their supposed ancestors,

such as the Nagas Karta snake . (3)

What the authors of the study described as a uniqueness of evolutionary biology. (4)

Even with the few hypothetical candidates — which are nothing more than useless aids compared to the main prediction —

we see a major misinterpretation.

🧠 So, what do we understand from this?

✅ Darwin’s predictions do not come true in fossil evidence ,

 but rather we find a clear contradiction to the predictions.

✅ There is a serious shortage of transitional forms .

🪫 In order to remedy the matter before the fall of the idol of evolution,

the followers of the myth tried to falsify fossils repeatedly,

relying on the evolutionary bias they held onto at that time.

Their situation was a cause for fabrication,

and their end was the end of lying and denial.

An example of that is:

🔍 1/ The Archaeoraptor fossil

Then Archaeoraptor was considered the best transitional link between dinosaurs and birds,

as it was the best fossil among the followers of the myth since the famous Archaeopteryx .

🪫 Oh, the disappointment.

Then it was found that the fossil was fake and fabricated,

combining the bones of a primitive bird and a non-avian dromaeosaur dinosaur.

• Nature published about it, informing about the scandal (5),

• and Science also published about it among the fabricated Chinese fossils (6).

It is good for Science to be frank,

as it begins its article with a beautiful note:

“There are many fossils that have been reshaped and assembled.”

And it gives us an example of another fossil, which is the ichthyosaur ,

which clearly appears to be an unmistakable fabrication.

🪫 Now to the great disaster.

In the aforementioned report, Jiang Da Yong , a paleontologist at Peking University, says:

🪫 “The problem of fake fossils has become extremely serious.

I estimate that more than 80% of the marine reptile specimens currently on display in Chinese museums have been ‘modified or manufactured together’ to varying degrees.”

🪫

Imagine the magnitude of the disaster when you know that China is home to the most important transitional links in the evolutionary system,

such as Archaeopteryx and others (7).

🔍 2/ Acinonyx kurteni fossil

While preparing this chapter, I had read an article published by the brilliant paleontologist Gunther Buckley ,

and was astonished by the pious fabrication attempts hoped for by the blind evolutionary bias towards this particular fossil,

which was followed by the heads of evolutionists.

The story begins with the discovery of a fossil by two scientists from the Shanghai Science Museum ,

which is supposed to be the skull of the oldest fossilized leopard, dating back to 2.2–2.5 million years . (8)

Then the fossil was celebrated and considered evidence that proved the origin of these carnivorous cats from the ancient world. (9)

Joy and happy nights were widespread…

But nevertheless, the joy did not last long —

as the two Chinese scientists Ding Tao and Qiu Zhanxiang revealed

that the skull was a crude forgery. (10)

They then informed the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences ,

which happens to be one of the ten most influential journals in science;

but the journal, in a comical move, published the article anyway. (11)

Although with one look you can see the body parts and fabrication. (12)

🪫 Who is responsible for publishing?

The answer is that it is the evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala ,

as usual, his evolutionary jealousy drove him to publish the research and support his myth.

However, the lead author finally withdrew the paper in 2012 ,

with the lukewarm explanation that it was based on

“a composite sample of laterite in the late Miocene and not of loess in the early Pleistocene.” (13)(14)

Anyone who wants to read more about the subject should review the article by paleontologist Dr. Gunther Buckley (15),

from whose article I benefited greatly in preparing this chapter,

and everything mentioned was detailed by the doctor.

🔍 3/ Piltdown Man

One of the most famous fossil frauds —

it was even ranked first on the list of the worst scientific frauds

by ecologist Jeremy Fox of the University of Calgary. (16)

The story begins with paleontologist Charles Dawson ,

who is likely the one who committed the scientific fraud,

although there are other opinions about A.C. Hinton as well.

This fraud is considered the most prominent practical example of the evolutionary influence on fossils,

as the fraud was not finally exposed until more than 40 years later . (17)

📌 Jeremy Fox says in his aforementioned article:

🪫 “I think it would be difficult to do a better job (i.e., find a more indicative fossil of the fraud)…”

(1) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st ed., 281-282

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=299&itemID=F373&viewtype=side

(2) Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of the Theory of Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 759 DOI: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/9780674417922/html

(3) Pascal O. Title et al. ,The Macroevolutionary Singularity of Snakes. Science 383,918-923(2024).DOI:10.1126/science.adh2449 (4) Stony Brook, Snakes: An Evolutionary Winner, Stony Brook University, February 22, 2024 <Snakes: An Evolutionary Winner - SBU News ( stonybrook.edu

(5) Rowe, T., Ketcham, R., Denison, C. et al. The Archaeoraptor Counterfeit. Nature 410, 539–540 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35069145

(6) Richard Stone, Altering the Past: China’s Fossil Fake Problem. Science 330, 1740-1741 (2010). DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6012.1740

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.330.6012.1740

(7) Britannica, The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica. “Archaeopteryx”. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 2, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/animal/Archaeopteryx . Accessed (8) Christiansen P & Mazák JH 2009. A primitive late Pliocene cheetah and the evolution of the cheetah lineage. PNAS 106(2), 512-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810435106

{Embed}

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/9780674417922/html

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

The world’s most revered and eloquent interpreter of evolutionary ideas offers here a work of explanatory force unprecedented in our time—a landmark publication, both for its historical sweep and for its scientific vision. With characteristic attention to detail, Stephen Jay Gould first describes the content and discusses the history and origin…

Kufrcleaner Library 📚 - 『⚛』evolution-criticism - The significance of fossils on evolution [1389480957249191957].txt_Files\product-9b5e92ceec0f14b6

{Embed}

https://doi.org/10.1038/35069145

The Archaeoraptor forgery

Nature - The Archaeoraptor forgery

{Embed}

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx | Size, Fossils, & Facts | Britannica

Archaeopteryx, genus of feathered dinosaur that was once thought to be the oldest known fossil bird. Its wing design and the structure and arrangement of its wing feathers were similar to that of most living birds, but its bone structure suggests that it engaged only in bursts of powered flight over short distances.

(9) Carroll R 2008. An ancient cheetah fossil points to roots of the Old World? National Geographic News, December 29, 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20090221125349/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081229-cheetah-skull.html

(ten) Wang X 2013. Mortgaging the future of Chinese paleontology. PNAS 110(9), 3201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301429110

and Stone R 2010. Altering the past: China’s problem with fake fossils. Science 330(6012), 1740–1741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.330.6012.1740

(11)Christiansen P & Mazák JH 2009. A primitive late Pliocene cheetah and the evolution of the cheetah lineage. PNAS 106(2), 512–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810435106

(13) Mazák JH 2012. Retraction for Christiansen and Mazák, a primitive late Pleocene cheetah and the evolution of the cheetah lineage. PNAS 109(37), 15072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211510109

(14) Anonymous 2012. The author retracts a PNAS article on a purported Pliocene cheetah fossil that critics have dismissed as false. Retraction Watch, August 20, 2012. https://retractionwatch.com/2012/08/20/author-retracts-pnas-about-alleged-pliocine-cheetah-fossil-that-had-been-questioned/

(15)Günter Bechly, Fossil Friday: The World’s Oldest Cheetah Was Yet Another Fraud, June 16, 2023

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/fossil-friday-the-oldest-cheetah-was-yet-another-fraud/

(16)Jeremy Fox, What is the ‘greatest’ scientific fraud of all time? (UPDATE: Comments are now closed), Published November 2, 2020

https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/whats-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time/

{Embed}

https://web.archive.org/web/20090221125349/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081229-cheetah-skull.html

Ancient Cheetah Fossil Points to Old World Roots?

The big cats originated in Africa or Asia, not North America as previously thought, according to a new study on a two-million-year-old skull.

Science magazine reports on fossil forgery in China

As many know, China is one of the most important sources of fossils and alleged evolutionary forms, such as the important transitional flea.



Taipin et Al, New Transitional Fleas from China Highlighting Diversity of Early Cretaceous Ectoparasitic Insects,Current Biology,Volume 23, Issue 13



And many more, I will refer to future articles, God willing. Now, hurry up and realize the calamities of evolution when you learn that 80 percent of these fossils are fabricated, as we mentioned. According to an article published in the international journal PNAS, Wang warned of the widespread fossil forgery in China, saying, “Researchers who routinely handle circulating fossils can attest to the prevalence of fossil forgery, which has become increasingly sophisticated and complex.”



Wang X 2013. Mortgaging the future of chinese paleontology. PNAS 110(9), 3201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301429110

TOP 🔬🔬🔭🔭🧪🧪🥼🥼👨‍🔬🧬🧬🧞‍♂️🧞‍♀️🧞🫵🏻🤏🏻🧠🙊🙈🙉🔎📈📉🧬🩻🦍🦍🚮🚮⛔️⛔️❌️