Where are all the missing links?

Species are species; in evolution or in any other position. There's nothing evolutionary about recognizing that one population is of a different species than another. We've been doing it long before Darwin thought of evolution.Since species can be recognized without recourse to evolutionary thought, there's nothing "interpretive" or evolutionary about recognizing that what was once one population of one species has become two populations of two species. Regardless of the scale of time one concludes is involved, the geologic column must be a record of time. Either millions of years or the 180 days of the flood. It has to be a record of time for very simple logic - you can't deposit a sedimentary layer underneath another one. The layers have to go from oldest at the bottom to newest at the top; it's physically impossible for the reverse to be true.There's no question that the geologic column is a relative record of time, creationist or evolutionist; how much absolute time that record represents is established by radiometric dating, to which no credible challenge has ever arisen. We know with certain that organisms reproduce and die. We know for certain that environments exert selective pressures on populations. We know for certain that organisms pass on traits via genetics. We know for certain that random mutations give organisms genetic traits that they didn't inherit from their parent(s).We know for certain that the bones of some ancient organisms are interred within the Earth. We know for certain that these organisms get progressively less similar to living organisms the deeper and older in the fossil record you go."Theories all the way down"? Not so. Like every scientific theory ToE is firmly grounded in a bedrock of evidence and observation, and the only assumption is the one that underpins all of science - empiricism leads to accurate conclusions about the universe. And you can't simply reject empiricism for evolution without rejecting all of science, which you're obviously not prepared to do.

YOu've got it completely wrong. My argument relies on NOT making assumptions about what the designer would do. Evolution predicts that something like archaeopteryx existed - and you would need to make assumptions about what the designer could or would do for design to make the same prediction.The rest of your stuff is pretty badly confused, too. I suggest that you go back and reconsider. (For a start archaeopteryx can't be called a "missing link" since archaeopteryx ISN'T missing !)

I base it on the fact that science "as a whole" does not rely on uranium half-life to be constant over large periods of time. In the sciences that are concerned with uranium half-life, we can still build our power stations and run our clocks and do very many other things. What areas of science would be affected by uranium not being constant over long periods of time - except historical sciences.And so what if the physics involved in those areas underwent upheaval? Physics only describes what is. It is subservient to what is, not the other way around. Why did I think someone would say that? It takes one to know the other isn't. In which case you could be the one to describe what characteristics of Archie are better explained by ToE than it is by Species are Immutable. And why. Note that the commonality of features between species is explained equally well be common descent and common designer. I'm looking for something which hauls ToE into a unique zone.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

The 'other theory' says the designer made all species as they are - ie: Archie is not an intermediate form. You didn't take account of that is your argument.If you accept that that theory says he made all species as they are without intermediate forms then say so...in which case Archie fits more easily into Species are Immutable than ToE. If you say otherwise, on what basis?Is there any difference between either theory as to how it goes about making predictions or assumptions. You say Archie isn't the missing link - because he is not missing. You didn't say anything about what he links however. Until you do, then the only thing we can say about the missing link - is that it is still missingRemember, Archie fits Creation theory better until such time as he fits something else better. Thems the rules of the game PK

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

quote:

---

The 'other theory' says the designer made all species as they are - ie: Archie is not an intermediate form. You didn't take account of that is your argument.

---

I didn't "take account" of the fact that the moon is not made of gren cheese either. And for the same reason - it has no relevance to my argument.

quote:

---

If you accept that that theory says he made all species as they are without intermediate forms then say so...i

---

Of course I do - THAT is part of my argument. Since archaeopteryx IS a morphological intermediate, a theory which predicts morpological intermediates does a better job of explaining their existence than one that does not.

quote:

---

In which case Archie fits more easily into Species are Immutable than ToE. If you say otherwise, on what basis?

---

See above. Or my original post on the subject.

quote:

---

Is there any difference between either theory as to how it goes about making predictions or assumptions.

---

YEs. Evolution predicts that somethign like archaeopteryx exists. Your "design" hypothesis needs additional assumptions - which you say can't be made - to make such a prediction. This was already covered in my previous two posts.

quote:

---

You say Archie isn't the missing link - because he is not missing. You didn't say anything about what he links however. Until you do, then the only thing we can say about the missing link - is that it is still missing

---

Archaeopteryx is a link between dinosaurs and birds (or just possibly between another branch of the archosaurs and birds although that seems increaingly unlikely)

quote:

---

Remember, Archie fits Creation theory better until such time as he fits something else better. Thems the rules of the game PK

---

And in my original post I explained why archaeopteryx better fit evolutinary theory. You have yet to manage a reasonable response to that. Unless you can, you lose. Them's the rules of the game IO.

I'm glad you enjoy posting with me. I enjoy posting with everyone bar hit and run lurkers. Of which you aren't one I was asking for evidence of ME. I was given Archie. But wasn't told why he is an example of ME. ME predicts intermediate forms. Archie or anything else can only be said to be an intermediate form when he is shown to such. And to my mind, Archie linking to something definitive at either end is the minimum requirement. Either he is a link or he isn't. He's not an elastic band.All I kow is that I won't swallow ToE in the way it is presented. The very clutching to Archie as significant when there is no particular reason to consider him so just serves to raise my suspicions. We don't observe species becoming other species in nature. If someone says they do then they need to make a case. Archie ain't it. Show me Archie with downy non-flight feathers and I'll take a big step towards accepting evolution. Downy feather don't exist (as far as I know) on any non-bird. There are evidently more efficient ways to keep warm so why would downy feathers that can't fly be retained by natural selection?A peacock tail serves a number of purposes. Cut it off and see how well it flies. That you compromise on specific function in order to achieve the best overall result is a familiar situaton to anyone who designs machines. Honest!Feathers evolved before flight (actually, pterasaurs were flying without feathers, as were insects) because they offered certain advantages. Circular reasoning. Your presuming evolution happened to explain that evolution happened. Sorry I'd bet you he wouldn't. He probably wouldn't find a mate and would become extinct I presume Archie is famout for the same reasons the other aren't. There was something 'obviously' intermediatary about him that the other hadn't got. If clear links could be made between them and him then it would be shouted from the rooftops. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but three? Why the silence? Is it because there isn't clear links between them. That there is difficulty in obtaining fossil evidence is a problem for the theory not for the people who remain to be convinced. To say "we don't have the evidence because of a,b,c..." can only, I hope you would agree, be taken by the skeptical, with a pinch of Jurassic period salt. Try win a court case like that..Other stuff you mention here suffers from the same start point that presumes evolution happens. It doesn't matter were it stops. Sciences job is to deal with what is, not what it would like it to be. I suspect the vast majority of science would be unaffected by a lack of uniformitism over the ages. Operational science is founded on the assumption that things operate according to the (assumed) immutability (that word again) of the laws of nature - not uniformatism. If things operated remarkably differently 10000 years ago then it wouldn't affect operational science today. What difference if water boiled at 84 degrees 10,000 years ago because of lower athmospheric pressure then. The laws of nature were the same, athmospheric pressure was what it was because of those laws.By all means presume uniformatism but add the rider to every calculation based on it that the calculation has no absolute basis in fact. Nosy Ned was inviting folk to head down to the 'dating' forum. I may well take him up on his offer. I can't say of course, but I strongly suspect I'll find the same assumption stacked on assumption there that I find here.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

You may have addressed other posts below, but we have many of these that you claim are missing and are finding more every day.

Intermediate. To what does this link attach to at either end. And if it is alleged to attach to something, then why aren't the bits to which Archie attaches as famous as he is?. Is it because there is nothing to which he firmly attaches? He stands alone... a feathered reptile.You may chose to decide that God is ludicrous and the evolution is acceptable. That's a phiosophical position. Science says look at the evidence - the hard facts. If you chose to make unfounded assumptions then so can I. Flinging in "Green Cheese" and "Pah! Creationist" comments demonstrate the weakness of your position not the strength of it. Richard Dawkins says in the Blind Watchmaker something along the lines of (copy at home so you'd have to wait for the page number if you want it): "An argument from incredulity is no argument at all" I tend to agree.The theory which best explains the evidence is the best theory. A feathered reptile with no definitive link to its predecessor or successor is better explained by immutable species - AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. By all means hold to the view that this will change but we're talking NOW not when. Evolution predicts intermediate forms. Now let the evidence show that Archie is an intermediate from. Start with a reptile-like creature with fully formed feathers. Where did the feathers come from. What precursor is there for them? Reptilian scales? If your happy to call that a link then fair enough. We have reached the nub of the issue. You find that acceptable as a link. I don't. We can end our dicussion here. Au contraire mon amis. It predicts that intermediate species won't be found. S'pose it all depends on what one classes as 'intermediate' doesn't it. Seems we're at stalemate m8

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

I'm getting confused again by your argument, so I'm going to use numbers rather than species to better understand what you are talking about.It sounds like you are saying that there designer created individual species 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.It also sounds like you are saying that you don't have a problem with macro-evolution (in this case 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.)But you don't accept that when you get to 1.9, then next step is 2.0.How about when you get to 1.99, or 1.999?

Handling this one point seperately Here's the article about the finds in China Here's the link: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/...urs/news/Feathered.shtml

Actually Archie's fame over these other ones is based on the exact same reasons that Brad Pitt is much more famous than I am. Archie is pretty. Archie is spectacularly pretty.You can get just as much info from Archie if we was wadded up in a ball as you would with him splayed out all dramatically. But, the wadded up dinosaur fossils on magazine covers don't sell.re: Feathers on the flying lizard
Yeah, if we stuck feathers on the little lizard he'd probably not find a mate. But, your point was that lizards can't fly or glide, and sticking feathers on them doesn't make it so. I was demonstrating that that lizard can in fact glide and suggested that sticking feathers on him probably wouldn't rob him of that ability.Uniformism - the final word.I accept your possition that science is making assumptions about uniformism. That's true.However, your argument that that defeats the ToE because it has no foundation, also destroys your own position of Intelligent Design. It's total scorched earth.You can't say that uniformism is an assumption and not say that non-uniformism is an assumption. Either both are or neither are.If non-uniformism is the assumption, then all of Creationism / ID is built on the same missing foundation, and therefore, by your reasoning, also complete suspect.I would suggest that the assumption that things are the way they are is slightly more grounded than the assumption that things aren't the way they are, but both are assumptions nonetheless.

Of course the fundmanetal problem is that you don't know or care to know the facts. Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird - just. Without the feathers it would probably have been classified as a dinosaur. Archaeopteryx does not stand alone. Archaeopteryx s unquestionably morphologically intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds.

quote:

---

You may chose to decide that God is ludicrous and the evolution is acceptable. That's a phiosophical position. Science says look at the evidence - the hard facts. If you chose to make unfounded assumptions then so can I. Flinging in "Green Cheese" and "Pah! Creationist" comments demonstrate the weakness of your position not the strength of it

---

That you repeatedly misrepresent my statements does not make my case any weaker. On the contrary, it indicates that you are unwilling or unable to seriously engage my points.

quote:

---

The theory which best explains the evidence is the best theory

---

Exactly. And since evoluton expla8ns archaeopteryx - and the many other transitional fossils - better than creationism, evolution is better than creationism.QED.

Go down the pet shop. Buy a non violent reptile and a bird (the reasons will become clear in a minute) . Yank a scale and a feather off. Pull a hair from your own head. Walk into a mental institution and say that the three are linked.Medication time

Hello, iano.

quote:

---

The above mentioned make uniformist presumptions.

---

And what else should we do? If we are trying to figure out how things did work, are working, or will work in the then and there, what else can we do except apply what we know about the here and now? What are our choices except to give up trying to understand anything? When I lock my front door and go to work, I assume that my house will continue to exist. Perhaps you object to this "uniformist presumption", but why should I expect that my house will cease to exist? There are no principles that I am aware of that would cause my house to cease to exist until I return in the evening. Maybe you think my uniformist presumption is silly, but I will still make sure my lights are turned off and the water taps are off to ensure that these allegedly existing lights and water do not run up my utility bills. In fact, I have evidence that my house does exist. When I get home, there are phone messages on my answer machine indicating that my phone machine still existed while I was gone, and the garbage I forgot to take out is starting to smell indicating that the garbage still existed and was fermenting. No doubt you think I am silly to make such a uniformist presumption -- no doubt you think that your "intelligent designer" designs an answering maching with messages on it just as I am unlocking my front door (and, genius this designer is, just happens to put messages on it that correspond to what actual people claim to have left when I call them back!). However, I think my uniformist presumptions correctly predict what I will observe -- phone messages actually correspond to people who want to speak with me, garbage left will begin to smell, lights left on will run up an electric bill. You are entitled to your magical designer who runs all this, but I am more than satisfied with my "uniformist" theories.Likewise, you might not like the assumption that the world has worked more or less the same for the last three billion years, and biology has been more or less the same for the last three billion years. But assuming that Darwinian common descent through natural selection of random characteristics leads us to explain an amazing amount of the world around us. The fact is that the species can be placed in a hierarchical classification scheme. The is a necessary result of common descent; common descent could have produced no other pattern. You are entitled to believe that some "common designer" created the species in such a way as to fit a hierarchical pattern (but why? whim?), but I don't understand what it does for you. Common descent explains why we see terrestrial mammal/whale transitionals but not fish/whale transitionals, why we see ape/human transitionals but not carnivore/human transitionals, why we see dinosaur/bird transitionals but not rabbit/bird transitionals. A "common designer" could have designed species intermediate between birds and bats; my guess is such species will never, ever be found. If species looking like primitive pre-bats are found my guess is that they will look more like the tree dwelling mammals that will be found in the same strata. I make this prediction despite that there are no fossils yet known of primitive pre-bats. If I am correct, that such fossils that are intermediate between tree-dwelling mammals and bats are found, why is this not a good indication that these uniformist presumption is a good presumption?There is a ton of evidence that not only is easily explained by the theory of evolution, but would also pose great problems if the evidence were any other way. One simple theory not only explains all of this, but predicts all it as well; without the theory of evolution none of this makes any sense but can only be explained as ad hoc whims of some "designer". Why is this not good evidence that the "uniformist assumption" is a good assumption?When people complain about "uniformist presumptions", I have no idea what they expect. Without a good reason to suspect that the "uniformist presumption" is incorrect, why is it unreasonable to make the assumption? More to the point, seeing that so much evidence exists that the "uniformist presumption" is, in fact, correct, why should this be labeled a "presumption"? To use a phrase by Herepton, I cannot fathom why anyone would object to the "uniformist presumption" unless they are committed a priori to some "world-view".

Actually the whole scale becomes feather thing is a myth. One still being spread by some pro-ToE websites, I admit. This is a huge problem, because it's an example of ToE scientists not playing by their own rules. It's not enough to say "scales became feathers" when they haven't been able to explain the mechanics of it.The reason they couldn't explain the mechanics is simple. They were wrong.It's hair that became feather.There was a really great study on this by Richard Prum of Yale Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. It basically walks you through then entire developmental process of feather evolution.But, I'll slim it down a whole lot and say this:Porcupines have quills very similiar to the quills of feathers (convergent evolution). Both sets of quills evolved from hair.