Where are all the missing links?

Darwin admitted in his day the fossil record showed no signs of intermediacy.Jonathan Wells says "similarity to living apes" was the only evidence hominid evolution was based upon.Missing links and intermediacy is what ToE is all about.But no evidence of either existed up until 1967.What was ToE based upon then ?This is rhetorical, but I guess I will have to endure the excuses.Herepton

No, you avoided my point.What did Darwin base his assertions on since the fossil record showed no signs of intermediacy ?Also, the Leakey quote says the very evidence which justifies the existence of your theory remained entirely missing as late as 1967.What was hominid evolution based upon then ?IIRC it was touted as fact since 1902 at least ?Herepton

Do you want me to supply the quote that has Darwin admitting the fossil record showed no signs of intermediacy ? Whats the point of having sources if an anonymous ordinary Darwinist on the Internet is just going to assert an authority is wrong ?What was human evolution based upon as late as 1967 ?Answer: atheist needs ?Obtain a source or my point stands for the time frame evidenced.Herepton

If the fossil record showed no signs of intermediacy (as admitted) then what was Darwin basing his theory on ?The Louis Leakey quote admitted in 1967 "hundreds of missing links were missing"The links are your theory's main claim displacing Genesis sudden creation. If they were massively missing then what was your theory based upon ?I must say it was based upon anti-Biblical worldviews, IOW, philosophy driven under the pretext of science.Herepton

IOW, he had no evidence commensurate to the extraordinary claim. Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in
common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched.When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories." One Long Argument (1991) p.99Herepton

Agreed.And the reason is because the fossil record clearly supports sudden creation and not speciation.If speciation were true the unbiased snapshots the record preserves would show the theoretical necessity of ToE. Everyone agrees species change slightly over time, extrapolating, or more accurately - assuming this accounts for big changes is driven by worldview needs.You can assume all you want - this is fine, but assumptions are not evidence. Creationists say if we take the evidence at face observable value the fossil record supports sudden creation and they are correct based on the evidence alone minus assumptions.We have already agreed the fossil record does not support ToE, therefore your theory, thus far, admitted by you is supported by philosophically driven assumptions. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and try again. Offering explanations not supported or observed in the actual evidence is tantamount to "quote mining nature."Your opinion about certain species is not evidence of relationship between them except by assumption. The evidence we have preserved in the fossil record supports a contrary theory. Species only mate with like species, except when forced to in a lab setting. The offspring produced is always sterile.The reproduction mechanism emits a scent that only attracts the sperm cell it was designed to attract. These are uncrossable barriers, unless of course you introduce a little hocus pocus. But suppose a little hocus pocus is assumed of which you have shown yourself open to, the subsequent random genetic mutation is still stranded without a mate of the opposite sex, unless of course, by some miracle another random genetic mutation somehow produces a mate in the same time and place and they somehow find each other in the wild.In summation:Your speciation theory is the misuse of logic called rhetoric, or more accurately - fantasy denying the reality and facts of science.By all means do not give up as what is true has no fear of falsification attempts if it is really true. The abandonment of substantiating even a skeletal chain of ancestry, which said chain is a logical prediction for a evolutionary theory, is because after searching for them high and low the world over: none could be found.But the lack of this evidence is being hand-waved away, if not conspicuously yawned at.To all honest objective scientists this absence of evidence is damning, unless of course ones starting premises are untouchable and off the table. In science - everything is on the table, eligible for falsification, that which is off the table is of religious nature. Rahvin:Evolution has nothing to do with Genesis. To think that Evolution's true purpose is to refute the Bible is simply dumb. Evolution refutes the creation myths of the Hindu religion and those of Native Americans and any other creation myth just as strongly. But it does so not out of spite for religion. Evolution exists because scientists seek the truth as presented by evidence. The fact that religion got it wrong is irrelevant.Herepton:Being a Darwinist your opinion here is very predictable. The arguments you presented does not justify the opinion, but nontheless you have a right to it anyway.Herepton

You must of missed it:http://EvC Forum: Where are all the missing links? -->EvC Forum: Where are all the missing links?"One Long Argument" (1991) p.99The quote contained the source, year, and page number.

Thanks I haven't had the time to reply just yet. Negative, there were no mistakes, its better to say you disagree rather than assert contrary to what anyone can verify for themself by reading the post. The only logical parameter to determine a species is animals that mate with one another, any other meaning has an ***a priori*** agenda
of a retropsective conclusion not supported by the evidence. Can these off-spring reproduce or are they sterile ?But I see nothing here that dents my original point. Agreed, but the only mix-up (as you put it) arises from your desire to protect an assumption: random genetic mutation.I will finish your reply ASAP.Herepton

Darwin admitted the fossil record showed no signs of intermediacy in his day, this supports (at this point) microevolution: species suddenly appear, change slightly over time, then disappear.We know ToE is not based on the fossil record because of the facts cited above. Gould and Eldrege are famous for concocting excuses as to why the record shows no speciation. IOW, from Darwin to Gould the situation had not changed and the world has been frantically searched via countless well funded expeditions.The fossil record supports Genesis sudden creation: species suddenly appear, change slightly over time THEN disappear. I am arguing that the best explanation of the available data taken at face value fits the Creationist model of Genesis sudden creation.My arguments automatically make me a deist but I am secular with no religious affiliation.Nobody knows how old the Earth is because there is way too much quality evidence that contradicts.The remainder of your post contains an excursion into abiogenesis and the deceptive beliefs of the Catholic Church. I care not to comment about these points except to say Catholics are entirely dual positional: what they say in public has no bearing on their official doctrines, that chief doctrine being anyone who is not a Catholic is going to hell. They placate you Darwinists while their official doctrine has remained unchanged for hundreds of years: God suddenly created the universe, the Earth, and Adam at some point.Back to missing links:Why was human evolution touted as fact since early 20th century in lieu of the fact that Louis Leakey objectively admitted in 1967 that literally hundreds were missing ?At face value, the reason is because God is not an option and the theory is not true. IOW, philosophy operating under the pretext of science ignoring the fact that the very items of which your whole theory rides on is missing.Herepton

The context of my original comments were of animals in the wild.Why have you expanded the subject matter to asexual organisms ?Does your definition of a reproductive community observe inter-species breeding in the wild ?Herepton

Very persuasive tactic to get me over in the dating topic you mentioned.I will review your topic and I am sure it will contain massive uniformitarian assumptions packaged as evidence.See you over there and we will see if your bark matches your bite.Herepton

You claim in the wild (A), (but not in the fossil record)(B), and in the lab(C).Can't you see your error here ?The massive gap of the parenthesis falsifies your other two assertions.If A and C are true then B should also reflect A and C, but this is not the case.The lack of B falsifies whatever goes on in YOUR labs and as for A: no way.Whatever you observe in the wild are hindsight explanations asserted as evidence. There is no actual evidence showing relationship except by assumption and assumptions are not evidence.Herepton

Your opinion assumes opponents assertions qualify as conclusive evidence.IOW, you are rooting for the home team. What EVIDENCE did Darwin base his human evolution idea on ?Similarity to living apes ?What part did his known racism play in those observations ?Can't blame God because he rejected God as Creator. As late as the early 20th century Darwinists were relying on racism to support hominid evolution.I ask again:What scientific evidence did Darwin and subsequent evolutionists base human evolution claims on ?HereptonThis message has been edited by Herepton, 09-07-2005 06:37 PM

And the record shows no evidence of speciation per Darwin, Gould, Leakey, and others. This covers over a 100 years.I suspect, you must conclude every species is intermediate in lieu of the fact that evidence is not seen in the record itself.This is called preaching your owm message despite what the text actually says, the mark of religion. Then why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?This is rhetorical and it is the thesis of Blind Watchmaker.Even though you insist you cannot have it both ways. Observation proves ID, unless of course you assert what we see is an illusion. This is deciding for your starting assumptions despite the evidence.Also, injecting an ad hom of "incoherent" indicates you are a frustrated philosopher operating under the pretense of science. Your observations are filtered by the needs of your worldview.Everyone else sees reality the only way it can be seen: created.The original meaning of "cosmos" is "order". What we have is designed and your inability to see it does not affect the facts.Herepton

Bat sonar screams ID.No way it could of evolved unless you assert so anyway.Migratory birds screams ID.Here is a little diddy of evolutionary falsification from Muslim creationist Harun Yahya: Herepton