Many people are attempt
ing to show that the theory
. Now, this is a very good thing
; scientific theories
exist to be disprove
d. And the person
who does it will remove
for many ideas
- much of the biological science
s depends on the correctness
of the theory of evolution
. The problem is that, along with legitimate research
, you'll have a few people
based on either incorrect
or fabricated evidence
One chief hub for these claims is Glen Rose, Texas, where the nearby Paluxy riverbed has a host of dinosaur tracks. Why here? Because if someone discovers 'out-of-order fossils', that is, fossils from (supposedly) different time periods in the same strata, then that would be evidence directly against evolution.
In the late 60s, a man named Stanley Taylor claimed to find 'man tracks' in the Paluxy riverbed, right next to dinosaur tracks. Now, the imprints that Taylor found did in fact strongly resemble a man's tracks, if his feet were larger than today's men. That is, they strongly resembled a man's tracks until the rocks were thoroughly cleaned, and the real giveaway - toe marks, five of them and shaped exactly like a print a guy walking would make - they washed away. They were made by sediment on top of the actual fossil. When cleaned, you could see (barely) the three-toed imprint indicative of a dinosaur.
The problem is that these results came out well after Taylor made a film about the prints. As the film was distributed, the legend of the alleged man tracks grew, and people descended on the site, looking for more evidence. The vast majority of the 'evidence' discovered for the next two decades were all debunked with all due speed - they were, at best, mediocre fakes. You had photos or films of prints made; either the film was doctored or special 'highlighting' was applied to the print to bring out its 'manly shape'. Other so-called tracks were simply erosion, and they resembled a man's tracks the same way that growths of mildew on a devout woman's fridge resembles the Virgin Mary. There was planted evidence - plaster casts, teeth from fish, even a 'prehistoric hammer'. All highly dubious.
The best thing found was an actual trilobite fossil, but it was removed from the site decades before and could therefore not be placed correctly in the strata, and so was unreliable.
The Taylor film was used for years as evidence against evolution, but even the theory's staunchest opponents now agree that the prints are lizard-based.