Where are all the missing links?

PUNCTUATION!!!Quote: "First the idea that most speciation was dependent on being trapped in a box canyon for a million years is fairly unique in human cognition."Do you mean that the idea is unique to me? That it's uniquely human?Quote: "Second if a small population means breeding between closly related relatives I think we know how advanced those results are advantageous and all that."Clearly you are just being pithy here. I assume you understand that four of five hundred squirrels living at the bottom of the Grand Canyon represent a smaller breeding population than the say, nine hundred million squirrels, in the rest of the world.However, five hundred squirrels being a smaller population does not equate to Russian royalty type inbreeding.Quote: "...the big picture crowd being exposed to a varied and dynamic environment...would be more rigerously examined by natural selection pressures and the odds would be overwhelming that from one common gene pool those so adapted would be the dominate group when the others escaped from the canyon."Two points of misunderstanding here on your part.
1) While the larger group would be exposed to more different types of pressures, any one given pressure would have less of an effect on them. So, for example, if there were irregular droughts in one area, a species which existed both in and out of the drought areas wouldn't have the same amount of selection applied to them as a group which could only interbreed with members who were within the drought area. As a result, the larger the breeding pool, the less likely one particular trait is going to spread through out it.2) While it is possible, perhaps even likely, that an isolated group might not evolve into a better competitor, that was not the point of the scenario. I radically over simplified the situation so you could more easily understand it.In reality, Species A would probably have dozens of isolated breeding pools, any one of which could spawn Species B, while Species A1-A11 are dead ends. However, the question was why don't we find examples of A1-A12, which the scenario explains quite clearly.Quote: "So in order for the two groups to declare speciation they have to remix for a while otherwise you don't know if they interbreed... definition of speciation"This makes no sense. According to this, we can not differentiate between any two extinct species because technically we can't tell if a T-Rex could hump a Wooly Mammoth.Yes, the ability to interbreed is a way of differentiating species, but not the only way.Further, two species do not need to exist in the same place at the same time for use to determine if they were different species. 14000 years ago, there were wild horses in North America. They died out (turns out horses are easy to hunt compaired to stuff that fights back). However, there are wild horses currently living in America, brought originally by the Spanish. Were the horses of the megafaunal era the same ones that the Spanish showed up with in 1492. Doubt it.Quote: "...the quick changing canyon dwellers just didn't die at the right place to be seen in the record and this is the common practice over 3 billion years."First off, we DO have records of the isolated groups and their changes. Several in fact, but it was YOUR question "Why don't we have more".Either you don't have an understanding of fossilization, or you are turning a blind eye.There is an excellent post above - Percy's #111. It goes into several, but certainly not all, of the scenarios in which a species could die out and we don't have a fossil record for them.Seems to me you are picking a lot of nits with people trying to explain this process to you. This is a popular tactic of Creationists. But, when asked to explain their position, the best they can up with is, "Uh, someone musta come and dun it."Well, what's the point in lightning rods? Clearly lighting is completely unexplainable through science. Must be the Intelligent Lightning Thrower.I wonder, do Creationists take medicine? Do they use computers? Lightbulbs?

Since none of your posts shows any hint of understanding what you are talking about and all of them show significant attitude (particulary troublesome from someone who knows so little) I don't think that you will ever manage to participate in the science side of EvC.I am suspending your privileges to that half of EvC indefinitly.

Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi... the Atlantic coast of North America in general... quite a few sites, actually... and most famously, Wadi Hitan in Egypt. So when talking about thousands of fossils, I guessed you meant in one place. And I only read your posts for the laughs. No, I did not assume that. 'Zeuglodon Valley' has many Basilosaurus fossils, and is famous because of Gingerich's finds. All you had said was that there are thousands, and that's the most famous place to find lots of them. I know they are found elsewhere.As to why they are numerous (though I doubt 'thousands' -- please reference), it is simply that they inhabited shallow seas where beaching was likely.But to return to your point: fossilisation is generally rare, because things get eaten and / or decompose before they make it into the rocks. But if the conditions are right, many things can become fossilised, as the cliffs at Dover show. I fail to see why this is difficult, or a difficulty for evolution.

To everyone, This is how threads spiral out of control.Throwing in occasional stuff like this isn't usually considered a problem worth a moderator's time. As the frequency increases it becomes more likely that moderators will take notice. When this type of posting happens too often then warnings and suspensions usually occur. The safest course is to follow the Forum Guidelines and stick to the facts.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

*tugs forelock* Right-ho Guv'nor...

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

Luckily we've dug up a few fossils since his day. Here's an in-depth look at intermediate species between major vertebrate groups: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThe creationist claim that there are "no transitional fossils" is common, but a lie.

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

The scant fossil evidence avaliable in 1860. That was over a century ago. What do you think that paleontologists have been doing since then? Well, then I guess Leakey was wrong, wasn't he?I'm going to guess that, since you posted less than a minute after me and I just linked you to several pages of in-depth scientific evidence, that you didn't actually visit the link and read any of it.Why would you believe that that's an acceptable basis for debate? What conclusions about your honesty and maturity level should I come to if you ask for evidence, practically beg for it, and then do not examine it when it is given to you?

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

What? Huh?Where did I say that I didn't believe you? I'm sure Darwin said just what you said he said. I didn't assert it, I proved it. Of course, now that I read closer, Leakey didn't say what you said he did. He simply asserted that the history of some species are poorly represented in the fossil record.That's a true statement. Can you explain to me how, from Leakey's true statement, you got what you said, which was:

quote:

---

Also, the Leakey quote says the very evidence which justifies the existence of your theory remained entirely missing as late as 1967.

---

"Entirely missing"? Can you show me where Leakey said that? Among other things - Louis Leakey's own discoveries at such fossil sites as Olduvai Gorge. What's the relevance of the "time frame referenced"?

Any evolutionist not willing to admit that is obfuscating. Usually what evos will do is use spin and say it's unreasonable to ask for "every" step or some such to be seen, and thus try to suggest the critic is demanding something unusual, every single piece of evolutionary history to be seen.Then, the evo shifts and says, we have such and such examples of transitionals. They may not even be aware of the propaganda and deception they are engaged in. At times, it's almost cult-like the way evos don't even see it.They've gone from criticizing their critics falsely as if they want every stage seen to putting up just a bare few possible potentials.See the bait and switch?They argue that their critics want to see all the evidence, a calculated lie, and usually then say, the critics are just moving the goal-posts, a God of the gaps type of thing.Then, they switch and present just some possible transitional forms.What is the effect? To seek to completely dodge the issue of what the fossil record actually shows, which is that the massive numbers of transitionals are not seen in the fossil record.The weird part is the evos call their critics liars.It's weird, and cult-like, and imo, I am not even sure many evolutionists have retained enough logic to be able to see my point in this post. They don't see how they are arguing on the one hand falsely that critics want to see "every step" as if the majority or plenty of steps are seen, and then presenting some proposed transitionals which are something like less than 1% if they are even transitionals at all.It's sad, and the principle reason I no longer accept ToE.

quote:

---

Jonathan Wells says "similarity to living apes" was the only evidence hominid evolution was based upon.

---

You make it sound as if that in itself isn't good evidence.-

quote:

---

Missing links and intermediacy is what ToE is all about.

---

Actually, it's not. The theory of evolution is as much about hierarchical classification (which is what the Wells quote is trying to ignore) and a few other juicy tidbits that make no sense whatsoever except in the context of common descent.Here is one of my favorite essays concerning the evidence for the theory of evolution. If you peruse it, you'll find that the fossil record is only on small piece (yet wonderfully confirming piece) of evidence for the theory of evolution.

So, you didn't read my link, either?What on Earth is Cantius if not a transitional primate? Tribosphenomys minutus? Anthracotherium? I'm supposed to look at these obviously transitional fossils, and then conclude what? That they don't actually exist because you say that they don't?I simply don't understand your argument, Randman. It certainly doesn't appear to address the evidence that I have presented or the conclusions from it. can you help me understand how what you've posted is in any way a refutation of the transitional forms I've presented?

Unfortunately Randman, you seem to have limited capacity to learn and a nasty tendancy to repeat assertions to often.I think that you need a 24 hour break from any of the science forums. Since I will then be moslty offline for a week you will have to depend on someone else to get back.In addition, it you bring up more science based issues in the other threads you will lose your priveleges there too.