Is the assumption that the "Flintstones" is supported by the fossil record, plausible?
549181
as the flintsones is a documentary using actual footage it is 100% plausible. Dino is a purple dinosaur, who would probably morph into a chinchilla to live in the modern world
547160
The short answer: a lot!\n\nThe long answer:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photograp
391353
fossil evedence of what?  that you came from a monkey?  I did not evolve that way.  We belive there was a flood, we belive in dinosaurs so the fossils pose no problem we just don't belive that we came from monkeys so yes we can go to natrual history musuems, i have visited quite a few with my church by the way
195123
no.  you're going to get a variety of responses ranging from the reasonable, like david's to the utterly ridiculous, like a lot of the others already here.\n\nas for the claims that the crater in the yucatan is supposition or "only a theory" (ever heard these words before?) there is a lot of evidence for it:\n\n"Probably the most convincing evidence for a worldwide catastrophe was the discovery of the crater which has since been named Chicxulub Crater. This so-called smoking gun is centered on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and was discovered by Tony Camargo and Glen Pentfield while working as geophysicists for the Mexican oil company PEMEX. What they reported as a circular feature later turned out to be a crater estimated to be 180 kilometers in diameter. Other researchers would later find that the end-Cretaceous extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs had lasted for thousands of years instead of millions of years as had previously been thought. This would be the final piece of evidence that convinced the vast majority of scientists that this extinction resulted from a point event that is most probably an extra-terrestrial impact and not from increased volcanism and climate change (which would spread its main effect over a much longer time period)."\n\nIt seems to be a bit more than a layer of clay in the ground.\n\nwhether this is worthy enough for biblical mention is debatable, but it seems that such a large impact would have had tremendous effects on any living species at the time, including (as creationists claim) humans.  why is there no mention of it either in the bible or other human cultures?  probably because it happened long before any humans were around.  it would have been a very important event, more important than a lot of the mentioned events in the bible.\n\nand if it is mentioned in the bible, please provide a passage.
3961
No. This is because Dinosaurs died out around 65 Million years ago. The bible refers to events in the last few thousand years. According to fundementalist christians the world was created 4000 years ago. The are even building a museum in America which shows Dinosaurs living side by side with humans. THIS IS NOT CORRECT AND IS INSANE TO BELIEVE. There was a programme on the BBC on this museum a few days ago which showed one of those big horned dinosaurs with a sadlle on which gave me a good laugh! I think their reason for the Dinosaurs not surviving the flood was that they couldn't fit on the ark, which also gave me a good laugh ;)
635155
If there was a worldwide flood, there should be layers of rock that could be determined to be pre-flood, a layer laid down during the flood, and layers that are post-flood. With all the "Creation Scientists" looking for some type of evidence to support their notions that there was a global flood, not one has found anything remotely close to the sequence I stated.
1117259
Yes. Read the story of Noah and the great flood. There are far too many disprepenceis to list here, but I assure you that it can be proven to be untrue.
740157
In the West, we're pretty cynical. We don't believe anything until it's shown to us: hence theories of dinosaurs were laughed at until bones were first turfed up in the 19th Century. Other examples: the komodo dragon, the seahorse, the blue whale, the dodo, the protozoa (tiny microscopic organism), the elephant, the narwhal, the white rhino, the moose, the platypus...the list is endless. And there are still loads of animals we think are myths that may be de-mythed in the future: the yeti, the bunyip, the Loch Ness Monster, the unicorn...
593795
Watch The Flintstones and you'll find out.
1034393
The answer *appears* to be yes.  That is the current scientific theory of our origins.  There is no other *scientific* theory that explains what we see.  (I.e. 'something just created/designed everything' is a nice theory, but not a *scientific* theory as it is not testable, makes no predictions, and does not *explain* anything).\n\nAll the evidence points to the fact that every organism on the planet is a product of evolution from ancestral organisms.  This is not just fossil evidence, but genetic evidence linking humans to other apes (like chimps and gorillas), apes to other primates (like monkeys), primates to other mammals (like tigers and tree shrews), mammals to other vertebrates (like birds and salamanders), etc. etc. all the way back to single-celled organisms.  Every step has genetic links ... for example jellyfish are genetically linked to sponges, which have genetic links to amoebazoans, which have genetic links to early bacteria, etc.\n\nAnd the *amount* of genetic linkage can be computed based on the chemistry of a single molecule found in every organism on the planet ... a molecule called DNA.\n\nAnd the order of these genetic links all match up perfectly with order in which the ancestors for each organism appear in the fossil record (i.e. earlier genetic links appear in lower layers of rocks).\n\nAnd the *amount* of the molecular/genetic linkage all matches up with *when* each ancestor appears in the fossil record (i.e. the amount of molecular DNA difference expected based on known mutation rates, matches up perfectly with the ages of the rocks in which the fossils are found). \n\nThat is the evidence.  Those are *facts*.  Those facts are not in dispute, only the explanation for them.  If you can come up with a better *scientific* explanation for this all this evidence ... these observed *facts* ... then you would get the Nobel Prize.
861869
The major lines of evidence are:\n1) the paleoenvironments the species lived in, as evidenced by the sedimentary rocks and other fossils\n2) analogy with related species\n3) functional morphology\n4) taphonomy and trackways\n\nThings you might look up are ammonites, trilobites etc
930216
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo
1122825
nope you cant prove it either way.\n\ni was watching a show on evolution yesterday though and i had an interesting thought.\n\nyou remember hearing that if earths history was an encylopedia that the history of man would only be on like that last half of the last paragraph of the last book?\n\nwell then why didnt intelligent life evolve during that whole time? \n\njust a thought.
1179172
I have studied this topic for nearly 4 years. I believe it is less than 7,000 years. I had trouble with this until I saw how things are dated. Then I knew that there was no "proof" of anything over  about 5500 years old. Every thing over that age, whether 20,000 years or 4.5 billion years is speculation. I have worked in the science industry for about 30 years. I know my way around a lab. I certainly don't know everything, but I know these old dates given to fossils and rocks are speculation. Recent discoveries in DNA and Micro-biology have placed serious doubt in a lot of scientist minds about evolution. I know for a fact that creation is debated by scientists daily. Many can no longer support theories once held by the majority.
784662
There was a cartoon on tv called "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs" it was on in the early ninties. That could be it.
660487
The answer is definitely B.\n\nWegener used that along w/ the fact that certain rock types found in Africa also matched rocks in South America. Also he used the fact that the continents looked as though they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.\n\nWhile Wegener proposed the hypothesis of continental drift he did not actually prove it.\n\nActually, it wasn't until the late 60's that the theory of plate tectonics actually proved Wegener's hypothesis & it became widely accepted.
1165467
Definitely probabilistic, but it uses deterministic processes.\n\nFirst of all, it has some significant assumptions:\n- Carbon dating assumes the dead object was in carbon equilibrium with the surroundings.  This is fine.\n- It assumes the amount of carbon in an object 1000's of years old is the same as an object today.  Maybe fine if there are existing specimens.  Not so good with dinosaurs.\n- It assumes the ratio of C-14 to normal Carbon is exactly the same as it is today.  Probably not so fine (think ozone layer).\n\nRadioactive decay is deterministic and measuring it is deterministic (you can conclusively point to a number that directly relates to decay rate), but radioactive dating (of which carbon dating is just one type) is based on the probability of carbon decay.  It assumes C-14 will decay at a specific rate.  The likelihood of this probability is very high to about 50,000-100,000 years, at which point there is too much uncertainty in the assumption and too little decay to measure accurately.  This is why they do not use carbon dating for dinosaur fossils, for example.