Fossil record doesn't show transition from simple organisms to complex ones since bacteria are already complex
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Claim
Fossil record doesn't show transition from simple organisms to complex ones since bacteria are already complex.
Source
- Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p.60
Responses
- The fossil record would not be expected to show a transition at this level.
- Scientists do not consider the fossil record to be the primary evidence of evolution or common descent. This is a creationist misapprehension.
- Complexity is relative. Bacteria are complex relative to inorganic compounds, but not relative to protists or elephants. This is a tendency (but not a requirement) of evolution. Evolution can also lead to a loss of complexity, if that is a survival boon. The fact that bacteria still exist today, alongside humans (as well as inside and on the surface of humans, too), is an a posteriori indication that the survival strategies of prokaryotes vs eukaryotes are more or less as good as each other.
- Today's bacteria are the result of billions of years of evolution. Primitive bacteria were undoubtely significantly simpler.
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Equivocation (meaning of complex)
- Straw Man (inaccurate models of the fossil record and evolution)
- Suppressed Evidence (of the other evidences of evolution)
External Links
Related claims
- Evolution requires progress through many nonfunctional intermediates
- We should see a smooth continuum through the fossil record
- Fossil record doesn't show progress
- Some species don't seem to evolve for millions of years
- Speciation hasn't been observed in the fossil record
- We don't see creatures in various stages of completion
