Why do fossils not provide a complete picture of evolution?
A simple explanation, on why fossils alone cannot give a complete picture of evoloution, is as follows: a. Fossils do not have the “living tissues” to complete the picture. For example, if you found a very old rusted car chasis, you might be able to tell that it was for a sedan, maybe the make and model, but you would not be able to tell the colour of the car, what the seats were like, etc. b. Evolution unlike the condensed version, offered in some books took millions and millions of years, and the changes happened gradually, an example would be, the change in type of hair, where the hair receeded, colour of skin…small things that fossiles, which are mainly skeletal in nature cannot show. c. Many fossil finds have been incomplete, and as such scientist have to do a lot of ‘educated guesswork” to form an assessment of what the actual living creature might have looked like. d. The other important thing is like, metioned earlier by someone…there are “missing links”.
