Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
What logic do anti-darwinists provide for refuting the proofs( by proof I mean the fossil records) of darwinism ?
Is it the missing links?
If yes then , what do they make of the fossils which are present?
Note : I'm not being hostile to the anti-darwinists, I'm just very curious.Also I really want to see it directly from an anti-darwinist (i.e. answer from an anti darwinist highly preferred)
If there's any problem in my question please inform me.
I'll try to approach this topic academically and undogmatically since skepticism is essential to scientific discourse. However, bear in mind that as of $2009$, $97\%$ of scientists believed in evolution (Pew Research Center, 2009). Although I can't find how many scientists were surveyed, nor what disciplines they studied.
I've not given many citations, since I'm questioning the counter-arguments to evolution, and not necessarily providing my own specific claims. I'll also avoid discussions in comments since this could be a contentious topic.
In theory, if there aren't fossil records forming a complete chain of species from early hominids to humans, then this could cast doubt on the theory of evolution. But the fossil records are convincing and there are many of them (Wikipedia, n.d.). Also, if there truly is a missing link and there is no relation between humans and early hominids, then why do their skeletons look so similar? And why did humans suddenly come into existence? Is there a better rational or empirical explanation?
One could propose that there are no fossil records, or that they have been faked. But why would anyone want to make any fake fossils or lie about them? What possible conflict of interest would they have, and why would this benefit them? Why would tens of thousands of scholars want to support this theory? How does this explain how scientists are still discovering new fossils? If anything, a paper that shows that evolution is false would be groundbreaking and give instant publicity to whoever publishes it.
A variety of scientific techniques have been used to garner information about the fossil records. One such technique is radiocarbon dating, which tells us how old the fossils are. If this technique is inaccurate, we could be wrong about the fossils and they might not form a chain that leads from early hominids to humans. But the technique is broadly accepted. Also, how would this explain the fossils - why would humanoid fossils with such odd shapes occur at random points in time? The shapes of these fossils don't look like typical human mutations.
Another counter-argument proposed to evolution is that the age of the fossils doesn't allow for their beliefs of the age of the earth. But the age of the earth is accepted by the geological community to be ca. $5\;\mathrm{bn}$ years old (Wikipedia, n.d.).
A related counter-argument to evolution that I'd like to cover, but isn't directly related to the accuracy of fossil records is that of microevolution vs. macroevolution. Some people argue that we can only see evolution on minute scales, and not on large scales. But then if a population does have small-scale changes, and there is a higher probability individuals with certain adaptations surviving, then wouldn't these micro-effects sum, over millions of years, to produce large-scale effects?
In my opinion, the counter-arguments for the fossil records of the fossil records for evolution are rather flimsy, which suggests that evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the evidence we've observed.
