Where are all the missing links?

I was hoping this topic would get promoted.The "missing link" idea is a flawed understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually states. Technically speaking, every species is "transitional," being between its ancestors and descendants. Transitional species are literally all around us.Let's start with fossilization. Very few dead organisms become fossilized - it's an incredibly rare event, and we are truly lucky to find many of them at all. We can hardly expect to find a complete family tree leading directly from one organism through gradual changes over generations until a new species is formed - fossilization is just too rare to reasonably expect such a thing.With humans, Creationists tend to ask for a "missing link" between man and ape, assuming that we should be looking for some mix-and-match half-ape, half-man creature. This is a false assumption. We have already seen several species which appear to have evolved from our common ancestor. Creationists say that these species are simply "another species of ape," but that's the point. We have several examples of ape-like creatures gradually attaining more human-like features (standing upright, etc.). The fact that we don't have a fossilized example of every single generation in between does not invalidate the theory that humans evolved from an ape-like common ancestor.For other species, we can sho a gradual change over time. Archeopteryx, while a "rare find," still shows an obvious link between birds and disosaurs. Most dinosaurs wer practically birds anyway - many species had bone structure (specifically the shape of the hips) identical to that of birds, while others still resembled reptiles. The fossil record also shows an excellent evolutionary path for horses gradually evolving from rodent-like mammals.Now lets move on to modern species. Only bacteria and the like will actually give us true observational results (as in, directly watching the strain change over generations), because of their rapid reproduction, but we can also see the effects of evolution in the various species of animals on the planet today.Let's start with the Bombardier Beetle. For those who don't know, this beetle has the remarkable adaptation of being able to literally shoot a chemical spray at a predator. It has an internal combustion chamber with just the right combination of chemicals, enzymes, an inhibitor chemical, and a tough chamber wall to allow it to "fire" its biological cannon without exploding itself. Creationists point to this species often as "irreducibly complex" becuase, if the exact composition of the biological cannon are altered in any way, the insect would either blow up (not great for evolution, obviously), or simply not fire. Obviously this creature must have been created fully formed.What the Creationists fail to realize, however, is that there are other species of beetle closely related to the Bombardier who have the exact same chemicals present in their bodies. They are used for entirely different purposes, but the similarities show that they have a common ancestor, and that the Bombardier simply evolved in such a way that the species is able to use those same chemicals for a vastly different purpose.The similarities between multiple species is commonplace. There are similarities in bone structures (the spinal columns of man and ape, for instance), behavioral similarities (bee species on different continents who have the same behavioral patterns), biochemical similarities (human blood-precipitation agents are still 64% effective in gorillas), and even the embryos of vastly different species look nearly identical.Next we have various organs. Some organs are vestigial in some creatures and fully functional in others. For instance, the human appendix is basically a useless liability, and we remove it if issues arrise with no change to our body functions. It's an "evolutionary leftover" that our ancestors used but we no longer require. Other organs have different uses in related species. Most insects have two pairs of wings, but flies differ in that they only use one pair for flight - the other pair is still there, but is used for stability instead. Many fish have organs that produce a small electric charge that they use for navigation, while others have the exact same organ that can produce a much stronger charge and give predators a nasty shock. All of this is evidence of species transformation. All of these features likely had a common ancestor, and the descendants branched out using the organ for different purposes.The "missing links" to species are literally all around us. Related species can have identical features that have different uses. Organisms often have organs useful to more primitive relatives, but are no longer usefull or needed in the "more advanced" species. Structural similarities over a wide base of related species show common ancestry.We see the evidence for evolution every single day. If evolution did NOT happen, what accounts for these similarities? Why would one organism have an organ necessary for its survival, and another organsim that looks similar have a nearly identical organ that is not necessary and is in fact a health risk?The fossil record is only a small part of the evidence for evolution, yet it supports the theory in every way. Modern species show evidence all around us of features and organs gradually evolving across multiple related species, and finding different uses or no use at all while still remaining present.With all of this evidence, and more, Creationists still point to "transitional species," saying that these similarities are irrelevant - they are not a clear "in-between" form. This is based on a false understanding of evolution,. This isn't X-Men or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, we aren't looking for Bigfoot, and other popularized examples of evolution (like a few episodes of Star Trek) have no basis in reality. We aren't going to find every single generation in between two species because fossilization is so rare, and we aren't looking for Chimaera-like half-breeds. When the evidence is actually examined in light of the actual predictions of Evolutionary Theory, the evidence clearly supports common ancestry, and gradual changes over time guided by natural selection.

---

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

Either way, they have great similarity in their bone structures, and it seems readily apparent that one evolved from the other.

---

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

Forgive my oversimplification of your post, but would you mind establishing the definition of a transitional species?Becuase, if the definition is something like:"A species which shares features with other species both before and after it in the timetable. None of its features would be completely unique; they would all show up, even if in somewhat altered form, in related species."Then the answer would be that ALL species are transitional species. We may not ALWAYS know 1,2,3,4, etc., but knowing that a particular group had a common ancestor, and that one species branched off later than another, etc, is enough to support evolution. Support this claim. Nitpicking. If we have 1,2, and 7, does that mean the theory is false? If we have 2563, 500, and 945, does that invalidate the theory? We HAVE SOME transitional species, simply not every step along the way. The rarity of fossilization makes such a feat a near impossibility. But that doesn't mean the theory is not correct. So far, the evidence DOES support evolution.If you have information to the contrary, please provide it. And yet, if the species have similar features, and none of these are unique but exist in slightly altered forms across a large number of different species before and after them in the evolutionary chain (regarless of exactly how far the seperation goes), why would this NOT suggest common ancestry? How does this not fit what evolution predicts? How's this. The fossil record does not show a sequence like 1,2,3,4, becuase the fossilization process is too rare and does not happen to every single species. The natural world does not arrange itself for our convenience. Instead, we can see definitive proof of common ancestry amongst species in that similar features are represented across multiple species, and none of these features are unique, occuring in species both before and after them in the geological record. All species are thus transitional, and provide evidence in support of evolution.Was that better? Looks pretty honest about the shortcomings and facts to me. Please define what you would accept as a "speciation event." We can debate whether we chave observed one or not after you tell us what you would accept as evidence of one occurring. I've supported the assertions I have made in this post in my previous post. I believe they show that common ancestry is a fact, and that, while we may not have the complete sequence, we do have enough to verify the predictions of evolutionary theory.

---

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

I didn't say that I don't know what they mean. I just want to make sure we have the same definition, so that when I provide an example, you cannot deny it.If we use the inability to produce true-breeding offspring as our dividing line for species, and a "speciation event" simply to be a progession where two groups who, generations past, were able to interbreed, but no longer have that ability, then I can proceed. These definitions are flawed, but they seem to be what Creationists are asking for. Speciation events.Primula kewensis was speciated from Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda in 1912 by Digby via hybridization and polyploidization.It was shown that you could reproduce the existing species Tragopogon mirus by hybridizing Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon porrifolius, as demonstrated by Owenby in 1950.In 1969, Pasterniani demonstrated speciation (as defined by reproductive isolation) via artificial selection rather than hybridization. He took two existing varieties of maize, planted them in a field, and over a 5 year period, selected only kernels which were not interbred for the next year's planting. At the end of this 5 year period, the plants' natural likelihood of interbreeding had been reduced by an order of magnitude - this demonstrates the beginnings of speciation, if not a full branching off.In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.There's a few speciation events, by the typical Creationist definition as I understand it. Actually, Nuggin brought up the straight sequence. I just supported him a bit.THIS is what I said:

quote:

---

Then the answer would be that ALL species are transitional species. We may not ALWAYS know 1,2,3,4, etc., but knowing that a particular group had a common ancestor, and that one species branched off later than another, etc, is enough to support evolution.

---

Stop misrepresenting me. I said we had enough evidence to prove common ancestry, and that we didn't NEED 1,2,3,4 to show that. I said that is we have 345, 624, and 975, that is still enough.My evidence is that every single species is transitional. Every single feature of every single species is not unique, but is similar to features in other species before and/or after it in the fossil record, and that these features exist in slightly altered forms across related species. I did!

quote:

---

Next we have various organs. Some organs are vestigial in some creatures and fully functional in others. For instance, the human appendix is basically a useless liability, and we remove it if issues arrise with no change to our body functions. It's an "evolutionary leftover" that our ancestors used but we no longer require. Other organs have different uses in related species. Most insects have two pairs of wings, but flies differ in that they only use one pair for flight - the other pair is still there, but is used for stability instead. Many fish have organs that produce a small electric charge that they use for navigation, while others have the exact same organ that can produce a much stronger charge and give predators a nasty shock. All of this is evidence of species transformation. All of these features likely had a common ancestor, and the descendants branched out using the organ for different purposes.
  —I already

---

Flies use only 1 pair of their wings for flight, unlike most insects, nut the other pair is still there used for a different purpose. Many fish have an electrical organ that assists in navidgation, and some species have that same organ, but it is slightly different in that it is now able to kill or disable predators with a stronger electric charge.Want more? You have two arms, with a partuicular bone structure and five fingers. You likely have hair on your arms as well. Monkeys also have 2 arms, and 5 fingers, and the bone structure, while not identical, is incredibly similar to yours. You have two eyes, which are remarkably similar to the eyes found in various other mammals, except that some other species have less visual acuity - a slight difference in the structure of the eye. Other branches of the evolutionary tree (like, say, birds of prey) have entirely different eyes from us (meaning they branched off long ago, and are part of a very different family), but the eyes of hawks are similar tot he eyes of eagles.Need I go on? Every feature in every organism is a slightly altered version of a feature in another organism. We are all transitional species! No. My argument is that the Theory of Evolution predicts that species evolve over time through gradual changes through the process of natural selection. This predicts that we should see small changes over several different species, and that many species should have similar features in slightly altered forms as evidence of the small changes. This is exactly what we see. Therefore, evolution has not been falsified, and is supported by evidence.

---

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

The pecentage known is irrelevant. All that matters is proof of common ancestry. See my above posts for examples of that.Besides - we don't even know how many species have existed on the planet. How could we possibly know what percentage of the evolutionary tree we have already discovered?

---

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

I'm going to say this one more time.STOP MISREPRESENTING ME. Your argument is a strawman.I never said anything about an "otherwise complete picture." Anyone who says we have anything close to a complete picture of the evolutionary history of the world is being dishonest or doesn't know what they are talking about.My claim is that we see evidence of evolution in every single species existing on the planet, as well as those found in the fossil record. We see that every single feature of every single organism is a slightly altered form of an already existing feature in other species, both before and after them in the evolutionary tree.Why don't you respond to what I have actually said, and the evidence I have used to support it, instead of attacking what OTHER evolutionists may or may not claim? They are irrelevant to my argument.

---

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

I already have supported it with several examples. If you would like to try to refute it, then name one feature - just one - that is completely unique to a given species, and NOT a slightly altered version of the same feature on another. Until you do this, your "opinion" of whether I can support it or not is irrelevant - I have. If you think I'm wrong, PROVE me wrong. This demonstrates that you really don't know what you are talking about. Of course different Orders will have massive differences! But evolution does NOT make a jump between orders. A rhino will never give birth to a snake! You're missing the point. These small changes over millions of generations eventually result in a species branching off. Several more species will branch off of that one, and have similar but slightly altered features from the last species. This continues until species whose ancestors branched off long ago in the evolutionary tree will have wildly different features from each other, but every feature they have will still be a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species close to it in the evolutionary tree. You're right. But those explanations DON'T explain why some features have no purpose at all. The human appendix is useless, and is removed with no changes to body function when it becomes infected (a relatively common occurrance). This feature is very similar to the cecum of the alimentary canal of many other mammals. The appendix is a vestigial organ. If a Creator or "intelligent designer" were at work, why would He insert a completely useless organ that runst such a high risk of infection, and make it look very much like an organ in related creatures? Common descent predicts these occurrances. Do you have some evidence that refutes this? Because as I see it, it still has not been falsified. As an individual and a layman, yes, I would be hard-pressed if you pulled a very strange freature of a very strange animal and asked me to identify what features are similar on other related creatures. I, personally, can't do them ALL, but I can give you example after example after example until I turn blue in the face. Matter of fact, I've already given quite a few. I find it interesting that you have thus far ignored every single example I have shown. Either refute my evidence or conceed, randman. You can't just ignore it. Well, with the caveat that we don't HAVE a fossilized representation of every single generation in the chain (that would simply be impossible to expect from a rare process like fossilization), I'm willing to take a crack at it. Why don't you actually post some information about this supposed break. Until you tell me specifically what you're talking about, you haven't provided any evidence for me to refute. My point stands until you can PROVE that it doesn't, and you need more than your personal opinion to do it. It's not the same feature. They are different features that evolved sperately in the evolutionary tree that happen to perform the same function. All three types of wings are vastly different from each other - but are very similar to features in other species which are actually related. Here's a link.

quote:

---

Insect flight evolved about 330 million years ago. There is genetic evidence that wings evolved from articulated gill plates on the limbs of aquatic ancestors, rather than being novel outgrowths from the body wall (Carroll, Weatherbee, and Langeland, 1995; Averof and Cohen, 1997).

---

Early insect wings appear to be slightly modified versions of the articulated gill plates of certain aquatic species.

quote:

---

Generally the arboreal hypothesis for the origin of flight in birds has been the more popular, but a recent paper by Burgers and Chiappe (1999) suggests that the apparent gap between the running speed of Archaeopteryx (2 metres per second) and required take-off speed (6 metres per second) could have been made up by the thrust produced by flapping its wings - a cursorial origin of flight. They point out that the structures and functions necessary for wing-generated thrust were already present in the flightless ancestors of birds.

---

Bird flight evolved from flightless birds who used their primitive wings for additional thrust to run faster. Eventually the wings developed until they were able to reach sufficient velocity and generate enough lift for flight.

quote:

---

The first bats appeared about 50 to 60 million years ago, which means that they have been evolving for less than half the time that birds have been evolving. The fossil record for bats is rather patchy, probably due to the delicate nature of the bat skeleton and because the early bats lived in tropical forests where post-mortem preservation was poor. It is not yet clear whether the microchiropteran and megachiropteran taxa are derived from a common bat-like ancestor or whether they evolved separately from earlier mammalian forms. So far, 27 genera of fossil bats have been found. It seems probable that the earliest bats were gliders, and that powered flight emerged later.

---

The fossil record is incompelte for bats due to their delicate skeletal structure. However, bat wings are very similar to features used by species such as flying squirrels to glide.The fact that, for each of the three types of wings (insect, bat, and bird), each species has a slightly altered version of the same feature. All bats have wings, but they are not identical. All birds have wings, but they are not identical.Winged insects are a better case, becuase we have wildly different species that still have wings, and the wings are not always used for the same purpose. Flies use one pair for flight and the other as a type of biological gyroscope for stability. Beetles use one pair for flight and the other as a protective covering. Dragonflies use both pairs for flight.We don't need to see every generation in between to have evidence of common descent. All we need to see are features that are slightly altered in different species. We can see that all bat species are related, though they are not identical. We can see that insects are all related, though groups of species branched off at various parts of the tree and are wildly different from other branches.Common descent predicts every last bit of this evidence, and we find it every time. If you can soundly refute the idea of common decescent, then please do so. Your Nobel Prize is waiting, if you can do it.

---

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

"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.

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

---

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

Totally, 100% incorrect.All we are saying is that the fossil record is not required to provide evidence for evolution. We have plenty of transitional species living right now that provide plenty of evidence. The fossil record just shows more evidence.So - without the fossil record, or if you dispute it, we still have creatures living today matching exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.We are not saying "if there is no evidence, you are wrong. If there is some evidence, you are wrong."What we are saying is that we have lots of evidence from various places, and the loss (as in, you dispute it and we don't want to bother arguing becuase it could get off-topic) of one source of evidence does not in any way cause the rest to magically go away.Why don't you try saying something meaningful and attacking an argument? You still have not responded to my earlier points.

---

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

What are you blathering about? What "belief" colors my ability to look at the fossil record? I'm talking about evidence, and trying to draw your attenton to my actual point, which is that every feature of every organism is a slightly altered version of the same feature found in other species. In other words, ever species is transitional. This means that debating the validity of the fossil record and what individual fossils represent is not only off-topic for this thread, but is also unnecessary as we have plenty of transitionals living right now!We can talk about the fossil record if you like, randman, but you'll actually have to TALK ABOUT iT instead of making ad hominem attacks about my ability to draw conclusions from the fossil record. Sorry, that came across as "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" There is data, there is evidence! I provided quite a bit of it in this thread, as have others. Why don't you prove that it's not evidence of what we say it is?!Of COURSE there is data that could disprove evolution. Evolution predicts very simple things, like: eveery feature of every organism should be a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species either before or after it in the evolutionary tree. No feature should be totally unique.If you can provide evidence of a creature that spontaneously formed a feature, or a species that appears to have been created with no ancestors of another species, that will disprove evolution.Why don't you try to actually DO so instead of making useless statemens of opinion?

---

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

You aren't reading, or you aren't thinking.EVERY species is transitional. It is partway between its ancestors and its descendants. Every feature of every organism is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species close to it on the evolutionary tree. THere are not "only a dozen" transitionals. ALL of them are transitionals. There are simply a few really good ones that clearly show a wildly new branch being created - like the feathered wings on the reptilian Archeopteryx. I believe Chiroptera has done an excellent job of that already. See his post on the subject. Again, see CHiroptera's post on the evolution of vertibrates and fish. How about this? THis page seems to have quite a bit of information about the evolution of flowering plants.Besides, fossils are just additional evidence. We see that across every species of flowering plant, every feature is a slightly altered version of the same feature on another species. This is evidence of common ancestry. You don't seem to get it yet, so I'll say it again. Every. Species. Is. Transitional. Every species is partway between its ancestors and its descendants. Every feature of every species is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species close to it on the evolutionary tree. Tell me - what is the purpose of the appendix? Why is there literally no change in body function when it is removed? Stop arguing from incredulity and give me some evidence. PROVE me wrong.I'm giving you dozens of examples. You're ignoring them. Prove me wrong or conceed.

---

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

See? Providing evidence isn't so hard! You've successfully shown that the human appendix may no tbe so vestigial after all!You havn't shown, however, that it is a unique feature that did not come from an evolutionary ancestor. It is a feature that is a slightly altered version of the same feature (the cecum of the alimentary canal)in most other mammals. No, it's a statement of what the theory of evolution predicts. Every species is transitional between the species of its ancestors and the species of its descendants.How does this have no basis in darwinian thought? How is it a preposterous statement without meaning? You seem ot be the one making the laughably unsupported statements.The real point, which you have still not addressed, is that every feature of every species is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species close to it on the evolutionary tree.

---

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

You still either don't understand or aren't paying attention.Disregard fossils for the moment. We don't NEED them, and the fact that the fossil record is of necessity incomplete would make this more difficult to explain to you. Let's focus on modern species, because we still have all the evidence we need there.Evolution predicts that every feature of every organism should be a slightly altered version of the same feature in a closely related species. No feature should be unique, or suddenly "appear."So let's take a look at a few examples in modern species. Vestigial organs are great, becuase they have no use, and are clear representations of altered features. FLightless birds, with their vestigial wings (wings that often provide literally no purpose) are obvious evidence of common ancestry with burds that can fly. Even where the wings do serve some purpose (being able to run faster by beating the wings for additional thrust), they are clearly a step removed from flying birds - but the feature is not unique. Electric eels and fish with similar adaptations are great, too - many species of fish have organs that produce a weak electrical charge to assist in navigation. A few other species of fish, as well as electric eels, have exactly the same organ, in exactly the same place... yet their version of the organ is capable of producing a much stronger electrical field, one that can incapacitate or kill predators. Clearly, a slightly altered version of the same feature from another species. Insects, becuase they've been around for so long and have such variation between species, are also a good place to look. Most insects have two pairs of wings. Dragonflies use both for flight. Beetles use one pair as a sort of protective covering over their flight wings. Houseflies use their second pair as a sort of gyroscopic biological stabilizer. All slightly different versions of the same feature. The human eye is structurally very similar to the eyes of many other mammals, but some species cannot see in color. A slight variation of the same feature. Most plants have leaves, but not all come in the same form - some have needles, some have broad leaves, etc. All perform the same function, but are slightly different and are adapted for slightly different environments.All of these are examples of creatures whose features are slightly altered versions of the same feature in other, closely related species. The further away on the tree you go, the more different species will be - obviously a rhinoscerous has little in common with a snake. But gradually following the tree we can see where different groups branched apart and shared a common ancestor.Fossils are greay, Evopeach, and they can be used to back up my claim, but I certainly don't need them. Living species provide plenty of evidence for common ancestry, and fit perfectly within the predictions of evolution.Now, if you would like to contest any of this, please do so - with evidence. No more unsupported claims or meaningless "there aren't any transitionals!!1!" I have provided a large selection of transitionals for you to examine, both in this and previous posts. If you think these examples are NOT, in fact, examples of transitional species or evidence of common ancestry, then by all means prove me wrong.If you attempt to do so, I would ask that you also provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a transitional species, as well as a general description of what, in your view, makes a species transitional.

---

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