Where are all the missing links?

The geologic column and carbon dating are off topic for this thread.Maybe you could show us where does evolutionary theory require "partly formed organs." Partly formed organs is a recipe for death, not evolution.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Nonsense, it requires fully-formed organs. How could an organism survive to breed if its organs were not fully-formed?Evolution requires organisms with fully-formed organs that change through generations; we do indeed find hints of that in the fossil record (organs don't often fossilize.) Because the fossil record is chock-a-block with transitional forms. Each transitional form is a fully-formed organism, of course. In fact, the geologic column is found at almost every place on Earth, because almost every place on Earth is subject to depostition. In fact, it has been revised and improved with data from radiometric dating. Kent Hovind says a lot of things that aren't true, and that he can't substantiate. My favorite Hovind lie is that he's going to give money to anyone that can prove evolution. What a whopper!

Mr. C., you are posting several things in one post most of which do not have anything to do with this topic.In addition, though you don't know it, you are spouting some of the most simple-minded and utterly wrong creationist arguments. It would be a good idea for you to do some reading here and in reputable sources before you jump in with both feet (in your mouth).You may if you insist join existing threads in dates and dating for your views on C14 dating. You could even propose a topic of your own but it doesn't appear that you are ready to.Note: The forum guidelines require you to support any assertions that you make. You now have an outstanding one regarding the formation of organs. You might do well to concentrate on that.NOTE: NO ONE IS TO JUMP IN ON ANYTHING NOT ON THIS TOPIC.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-14-2005 09:53 PM

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

​

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

​

Other useful links:

​

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Welcome to the forum. Note that we usually like to see assertions substantiated and logically presented. Opinion is just that, and you are welcome to it, but it is invalid as an argument in an arena of facts and validated theory.All individuals are transitional forms between their parents generation and their offsprings (if they have any) generation.You are different from your parents and your siblings and your (if you have any) children. Without you the children would not exist, without your parents, you would not exist.You also likely know people who died without reproducing or who are sterile. Their line ends with them, it is extinct.There is no difference between this and all the species in the fossil record. The only difference is that the fossil record is a series of snapshots of distant aunts and uncles that no-one remembers the names of anymore.Enjoy.ps you can take your "carbon dating would not even be possible" concern to the {{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}} thread if you want to discuss it. There are also topics already running on the other {{proscribed}} areas of your post that admin should be able to direct you to. (hmmm ... I might need another belt.)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

the evolutionary theory requires creatures with partly formed organs.

---

Here is an example of partially formed wings: Here is an example of partially formed legs: Finally, here is an example of partially form eyes: This is the sort of thing that the theory of evolution predicts.

I have raised this issue elsewhere and have never been answered.What's the definition of "rare" here? Throwing out that expecting every step to be seen or something like that obscures the fact that no one is demanding that.What is demanded and not given, it seems, is some sort of working definition of "rare" in this context of geologic time. You say we are lucky to find them at all, as if they are extremely rare.My question is if fossilization is so rare, why do some species have thousands of fossils from all over the world, dating back based on evo assumptions 40 million years or more?If it's that rare that most species and families of species are not seen in the fossil record, would we expect some species and families of species to be represented by more than one or 2 examples?Let's use the lottery for an analogy. It is rare to win the lottery, right? Is it as rare for a species to be fossilized as for an individual to win the lottery?How about an individual winning the lottery several thousand times?The fact there are thousands of fossils for some species, such as Basilosaurus, indicates that fossilization is not as rare as evolutionists claim.
But w

There is a fossilization process thread. I think that will be better for discussing "rare" etc.For now let's leave this one sorting out what a "link" is then we can discuss "missing".(You have been given references to taphonomy sites which do give some quantification of 'rare'. I suggest you sort that out before cluttering up other threads. All the questions you are asking here have been answered several times. I also suggest that you go and find the answers. Do not keep asking!)

And yet, at places like the La Brea tar pits, we have loads of sabretooth cats. One could conclude that big cats were once as numerous as prey animals. Ever considered that there might be some peculiar reasons for so many Basilosaurus to be in one place? (I'm assuming you're refering to Wadi Hitan, the so-called 'Zeuglodon Valley' in Egypt?)Oh and incidentally, randman. It's interesting that you haven't moved on at all in the four years since you had your fundament handed you on whale evolution over at IIDB. Still banging away, eh?SSDD.TTFN, DT (Oolon Colluphid)

"Partially formed?" What do you expect transitionals to look like? Some Chimeara halfbreed? A twitching mass of almost-formed organs that would die immediately?Two problems with your statement, Mr. Creationist. First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so even if there WERE no transitionals in the fossil record, you would be wrong. Second, there ARE transitionals in the fossil record - they, like every living thing that has ever existed, are ALL transitional species. Please see the previous posts in this thread that you obviously did not read. Perhaps you should read a bit more about the theory of evolution. This comment does not imply a strong understanding of what the theory predicts. What evolution predicts we should find are features (including organs) that are slightly altered versions of the same feature in other organisms before or after it in the evolutionary tree. Things like the appendix, a useless vestigial organ that is remarkably similar in placement and structure to an organ used and required by most other mammals. Organs like the human eye, which is a slightly different version of the same organ found in other mammals. Apparently you are arguing from ignorance. Every single creature we have ever found, as well as every creature now living, is transitional. We have MANY. The problem is that you aren't looking very hard, or reading what others have written. If you would like to use this argument, you must first show that the creatures anf features already mentioned by myself and others in this thread are NOT transitional. Prove us wrong, and THEN you can proceed to say that the lack of transitionals is evidence against evolution - but until you prove us wrong, you are simply willfully ignoring evidence.EDIT: Editted for spelling errors and a mistype - wrote "pancreas" when I meant "appendix."This message has been edited by Rahvin, 08-15-2005 02:30 PM

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Your entire post is irrelevant. We have fossils which ARE clearly transitional. If you disagree, prove that they are not.In any case, my point does not even need the fossil record. Evolution doe not need the fossil record - it's simply additional supporting evidence.You have so far ignored my posts about what a transitional species actually is. You have so far not even attempted to refute my points- that the transitionals predicted by evolution are simply organisms whose features are simply slightly altered forms of the same features in other species slightly before and/or after them in the evolutionary tree. This means that EVERY species is transitional - exactly as evolution predicts. Please refute this, prove me wrong, or conceed.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

And there is of course, Mr. Panda's thumb.http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html

Oooh, that's a REALLY good one!Thanks, deerbreh.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

First I would like to ask why out of the many, many millions of species that must have existed there are among the untold millions of fossils in museums today perhaps a dozen so called transitional forms when given the bacteria to human story there must have been millions of transitional forms between species.One could just ask for directions to the museum(s) where all the transitional forms are that give rise to the simple vertebrates .. sort of fill in between the simple one celled creatures and the simple vertebrates. It would be a long wait since such do not exist anywhere.. prove me wrong show me the concrete undisputed such items.Or what about the transitions from simple invertebrates to the first vertebrates say the fishes ,,, tell me where do I go to see the transitional forms leading up to fish... answer nowhere, they do not exist... prove me wrong show the place .. there would be tens of thousands of such entities.And then there are the flowering plants .. where are the fossils for the precursors to them with all those transitional forms... nada nowhere ... show me the place to see them.. I want to see them so badly.Was evolution too slow to see or too fast to see these million of upon millions of transitional forms that undoubtedly had to exist under evolutionary theory... less than a dozen and those always disputed among the evolutions.Please tell me you don't subscribe to embryonic recapitualtion after its death three decades ago or that tonsils and appendices serve no purpose.. vestigial indeed .. not held by anyone to be true for three decades.Time is running out on this scientific hoax,Evopeach

Thanks for admitting that. I think an objective observer could safely conclude that belief colors your ability to look at the fossil record objectively. LOL. I am glad you admit to this. That's something I have claimed evos belive all along. Basically, there is no data, imo, nothing that can be found that could falsify evolution because evolution predicts everything!Aren't we having a wonderful day!

no, it was my impression that the majority of Basilosaurus were found in Louisiana where fossilized parts are often found and used in various ways, for household decorations, lamp pieces, etc,..It's quite humorous to hear how ignorant you are and assumed that they have been found only in one place in massive numbers when they are found in the southeastern US, Australia, Egypt and other places.As far as prior arguments, the same story holds true. We have thousands of fossils of some species. So fossilization is not that rare, and yet we don't see the transitional forms.Why is that?