Where are all the missing links?

The problem is Rahvin that different people have a different idea of "enough".In Message 5 I said All the available evidence supports the TOE and the hypothesized evolution of whales. Whether that evidence is "enough" or not will depend on the indvidual.It is clear that for some 100 more steps fitting right into the current pattern would not be enough. Remember this particular sequence is fun because one of the more famous anti-evo's voiced something like "where's the fossils?" just before the current rush of transitionals started to be found. I don't remember who it is but you can bet he is not more convinced now than then.I'd suggest giving some thought to whether you have done all you can on this topic.

I think this is both correct and incorrect. If there were no fossils of transitional forms at all then it would be a problem that would require explaining. This is based on the degree to which we do find fossils; if none were transitional then that would require some explaining.However, it is correct if it is referring to one particular (or even several or many) lineages. That is because we have good transitional forms putting dots down for use to connect in many other lineages. That is enough to suggest that missing forms are missing fossils but that the transitionals probably existed since there is no reason why the ones with few or no transitional fossils can be any different from other. We had a big long argument about absense of evidence. As I note above if there was a total absense of evidence one would have to wonder. There is a lot of evidence in many lineages which makes if silly, to me, to presume that the absense of fossils in other lineages is a real absense of the transitionals. Again, we DO find them. Just not for every lineage.

I'm afraid that several people here are misusing the word vestigial. It does NOT mean useless. From Merriam Webster online:
1 a (1) : a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something (as an ancient city or a condition or practice) vanished or lost (2) : the smallest quantity or trace b : FOOTPRINT 1
2 : a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related formsObviously the second definition is the applicable one.An organ is vestigial if it is less functional than a precisely corresponding organism in related animals.The appenidx is a vestigial caecum. See this site:
Vestigiality of the human appendixYou will demonstrate that you have read and understood this material by talking sensibly about the contents. If you do not AdminNosy will suspend you again for longer (and it seems I am a bit forgetful about restoring you from a suspension so it might be longer than longer). Since each offspring is different from it's parents and it's offspring are different from it just what is your disagreement with the statement?You have yet to supply a defintion of what a transitional would be. You will also do this before asserting your incredulity without reason. Again, if you keep simply making uninformed statments you will be suspended again.

I think you might want to dig into the actual meaning of the term. This is something new to me too.

Obviously wrong. You have had posts in reply to you discussing this in a number of ways. You, yourself have, talked of branching.If you continue to exhibit little to no ability to learn you will be suspended for longer periods until you have had time to read and think.Your posts exhibit no evidence of you learning or thinking about any of the discussion. That is becoming frustrating for a number of individuals. It is getting to be near the end of the time that should be wasted with you, IMO.

We keep asking people who think as you do to go to the "Dates and Dating " forum and explain their beliefs there and answer the questions put forward there; especially in Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.However, everyone so far gives up; they certainly haven't produced "quality evidence".Having been through this a bunch of times I'm pretty sure that your views are based on your knowing almost nothing about these topics: evolution and dating. You have been fed some junk but don't really have any quality information.

And you base this on? In fact, the physics involved would require a huge upheaval in what we understand to be the case.However this is not the thread for that. If you wish to discuss it why don't you try the dates and dating threads (especially the correlations one -- I find it amusing how carefully the YEC'ers look the other way and tip toe by those threads ).You have to be careful about the pronouncements you make when you know very, very little about the fields you are discussing.E.g., there are other dino to bird transitional evidences than just Archie. It is discussed so often because it was for a long time the only example, because some of the specimens are so very well preserved and because it is fits so nicely inbetween as a transitional. It is not just the feathers.Your lack of knowledge of the sciences does not constitute any kind of reason for your thinking that you are right.

Perhaps it is a problem with your reading? It maybe you didn't even read the book. Why don't you explain what Dawkins has to say about it.I have read the book and the above question of yours seems rather an odd one when one has read the book.