Where are all the missing links?

It seems to me that your argument is that humanity exhibits the things you listen but that chimps do not.I disagree. I don't believe that you can show that chimps have no self-awareness, have no moral dimension, etc.In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Jane Goodall's work couldn't be used to prove moral dimensions, etc.This is sort of like saying, I can't see through the eyes of a cockroach therefore it is blind.Here are some similiar ways man has seperated himself from animals in the past, all of which have proven to be wrong.- We are the only ones who use tools
- We are the only ones with a language
- We are the only ones that mourn the dead
- We are the only ones that keep other animals as sources of food / workFrankly, the number of things seperating us from the animal world decreases in direct relation to the amount of study done of the animal world.

This is not true. Biology alone can support ToE.However, there are many branches of study which can also support the theory in part. For example, geology, paleontology, nuclear physics, etc. From your analogy, you seem to think if the number 3 on a calculator can't do the whole work of the calculator, then the calculator doesn't work. That's incorrect.Geology is mainly focused on rocks, however the light it does shed on evolution supports what biology has already told us. I've spent some time thinking of good examples for this, but it always comes back to archaeoptrix. It's such a clear example of speciation that it's hard to find something that has such a dramatic punch.Today, all birds have feathers. Only birds have feathers. Anything with feathers is a bird. Feathers, as a feature, are a very good identifier. Birds also have beaks rather than teeth (so do turtles).Archaeoptrix clearly has feathers. But, if you couldn't see the feathers (as was the case in the earliest finds of archaeoptrix) you would certainly think it's just another dino-lizard. The teeth, the head, the forearms. Looking just at the bones, it's clearly not a bird. But, then there's those feathers.If Archaeoptrix was a single find, it'd still be a fantastic example. But there are now several archaeoptrix fossils, and the work being done in the volcanic ash in China is producing several of the species that fit in before and after in the time line.If you can not accept this find as a transition between dinosaur and bird, it's hard to believe that any amount of evidence would convince you. I believe you are misunderstanding the statement. We are not saying "that fossils don't support ToE in and of themselves". What we are saying is "ToE doesn't rely soley on the support of the fossil evidence." The fossils DO support ToE, but they don't stand alone in their support.Yes, there are gaps missing in the tree. We'd expect there to be gaps missing. But, if you've ever put together a puzzle, you know that even without looking at the box, once you have a certain number of pieces in place, you can tell what the picture is going to be. All science relies on uniformatism. Without it, NO SCIENCE would work at all. Hell, our world would completely collapse.A doctor tells you to take aspirin for your headache ASSUMING that aspirin has not spontaneous changed from a cure for headaches into a cyanide like poison.You go to work ASSUMING that the building, the people, the job, will be there.You type on your computer ASSUMING that the letter combinations you use to spell certain words will be consistant from day to day.You drive ASSUMING the internal combustion engine works the same today as it did yesterday.If you want to discard ToE based on the idea that there is no evidence that the world behaves with consistancy, then I would suggest you take that principle and apply it to the rest of your life.It may very well be true that nothing that exists is real, but how is that useful for science, or even everyday life? I would say that evolution is a 99.99% explaination. The reason we say that everything is tentative is this -Unlike religion, science is willing to change its possition to fit the facts. If, all of the sudden, every tree on the plant sprouted rocket pods and flew off into space, we'd have to reassess our conclusions. Meanwhile, religion would simply say - "It didn't happen". I'd be happy to answer this question, but I need a better foundation in what you are asking and what you are considering "assumptions". As I said above, all of science relies on the "assumption" that what we see happening is in fact happening. That, if we had witnessed it yesterday it would be the same as today. That, if we were to witness it tomorrow it would still be the same.If you hold that basis to be an unacceptable assumption, then your question is impossible to answer.I would also like to counter with this - Is there anybody who actually "knows" that YEC is true in and of itself? Not based on some book, not based on theories presented by that book.Basically the debate comes down to this, I guess -One group - ToErs believe that reality is real, has been real and continues to be real. That's their primary assumption.The other group - Creationists believe that reality is not real, that it was not real in the past, and that in the near future it will stop being real again. That's their primary assumption.Given these two assumptions, there is no basis for compromise. They are completely incompatable.I would simply suggest that one of these two assumptions has a great deal more to do with everyday life than the other one.

First off, let me just say this -- I really enjoy posting with you Iano. We often disagree about things, but you tend to support what you are saying with rational (although misguided ) arguments.Now, onto your post -- I may have misunderstood what I was answering. I thought you were asking for an example that demonstrated macro-evolution.Is it your position that species can evolve from one to another but only through divine intervention, or is it that they can not evolve from one to another? Sounds like a reasonable assumption, but not true. Downy feathers on hatchlings offer no ability to fly, but offer warmth which is advantageous. A peacocks tail doesn't help him fly (in fact it probably hinders it) but it's a strong sexual attractor and therefore every advantageous.Feathers evolved before flight (actually, pterasaurs were flying without feathers, as were insects) because they offered certain advantages.It may be that every member of the raptor family had feathers. The problem is, as rare as fossils are, its unthinkably rare that one would preserve skin or feathers as well. I bet if we stuck some feathers on this guy, he'd do alright.
Spotted Gliding Lizard - Draco maculatusbut, still, feathers predate flight for above reasons and I'll discuss muscles below.As for landing and aeronautics. Ever seen a blue booby land? They still don't have it down right. Baby birds must "find" their wings before they can fly. Additionally, even just the ability to get the heck away from a predator by a flap assisted jump would be a huge advantage over the guy next to you. Well, they aren't presumed, they are called protoarchaeoptrix, and they have several examples of them. It's just that Archie is super famous. There's also examples from later in the line. Gobipteryx for example is the first non-toothed member.Many of these fossils are coming from a region in China where volcanic ash choked out huge numbers of creatures and preserved them very well.Now, about muscles. The wingbeat muscle structure does seem very specialized, but the wingbone structures needed for it appear before flight. Evidence for ID? Not likely, pre-flight species with this feature have very large hands. Almost comically oversized. The muscle / bone structure supports a "grab" attack motion. Sort of like a praying mantis (if that helps you visualize).Just because a piece of a feature (wing muscles) is used today for a certain thing, doesn't mean that that is what it originally developed for.Now, onto uniformism...Yup, I completely understand the concept. What I'm saying is that it's unreasonable for someone to say that some things conform to uniformism and that somethings don't.If we believe biology behaved differently in the past than it does today, can't we also say that physics was different, chemistry, etc?Where does that stop?Do we have evidence (modern or historic) that the laws of physics have changed radically in the last 10 years, 100, 1000, 10 million?Why would we presume that biology would have behaved radically different in the past? Or chemistry? Or radiology?

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

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.

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.

You missed Post 250.

Hey Herepton, you gotta get in some more computer time. You disappear for days on end. What do you have a real life or something? Can you please explain this to me. By my thinking, observation that proves ID would include actually observing the designer as he designed something and implimented it.I think you can safely say "Observation implies ID" though I would disagree with this assertion.Can you maybe give us an example of a species / feature which you believe is a strong indicator for ID?

Hey, notice the title is "re: RE: Archaeopteryx"?Let's get back to that. I've been waiting all weekend for you to come back Did you read my post 250? We were discussing the appearance of downy feathers before the appearance of flight feathers.

The answer is oddly funny. Evolution.Early man faced a harsh world without the massive muscles, the sharp claws, the power venom, the long fangs of so many of the other animals.What Early man excells at is finding patterns:Birds circle in the sky - there is meat on the ground.The yellow birds have disappeared, it's going to get cold soon, we better start saving food.I eat this plant, my headache goes away.Sometimes our pattern seeking fools even us. If I find a 4 leaf clover, good things happen to me.Want a real time example? Clouds are random collections of water molecules under the influence of heat, wind and gravity.Look at a cloud and tell me what you see.You don't honestly believe that you see a fire engine in the cloud. You are picking up bits of random information which you are interpetting as a fire engine.

I'd be happy to discuss either of these systems with you, but let's pick one and dress it out first.What about bat sonar screams ID to you? What about migratory birds screams ID to you?As for the talk about bird lungs and reptile lungs, there is a big problem right off. This author, like so many others, assumes that bird evolved from reptiles, then looks at todays lizards and examines their biology.Birds did not evolve from reptiles. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs have some features in common with reptiles, but they are themselves not just "big gila monsters" or "big iguanas".And, by the way, I googled "bird lung evolution" and the first thing that came up was this site:Pharyngula - Hotell anbefalinger BarcelonaWhich describes the avian lung with diagrams and a cool latex injected duck. It then goes on to show the skeletal ramifications of this elaborate breathing system, then shows the same features in dinosaurs.So, far from disproving evolution, this example is yet another startling proof for dino-avian evolution.

So it is your contention that animals which share birds respritory features, bone density, bone placement and feathers are not concrete enough to be considered proto-avian.You think that the proto-feather is simply quill like hair.Clearly there is no further reason for discussion here. No amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to convince you.PLease don't ask for evidence if your only intention is to just discard it out of hand.