Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing Link
Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 80 (96693)
04-01-2004 5:29 PM


Everyone talks so much about "evidence" that evolution happens. But i have a question: what about the missing links between species? They haven't found a single missing link between ANY species, proving that macroevolution occurs. This in itself is a great deal of evidence AGAINST evolution. I will explain what i mean: Say, for examlple, a circle is evolving into a square. This would be a proccess taking millions of years, correct? Draw this to better understand. First there would be the circle. The next thing would be a circle that has some slight protrusions at the "corners". The next would be those protrusions getting large, and so on, untill it formed a perfect square. Obviously, if you drew each "step" you would have millions, if not billions of individual drawings of a circle evolving into a square, each drawing representing a successful step in that species evolution. Now look at the numbers. If each step IS that specie at a certain time in history, that would mean that that specie LIVED and BREEDED like that, so obviously there would be thousands (at least) of individuals just to maintain the specie. All the fossil evidence that has been found is the circle, and the square. The missing link would therefore be the millions of drawings of the "in between" circle/square. These millions of variations for each specie just haven't been found. Yet they are obviously the majority over the "before and after" part if the specie. So if grand scale evolution is supposedly occuring, and all we find are the minority of a specie (meaning the circle and the square, nothing in between), then there is obviously something wrong with the THEORY of evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2004 5:34 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 3 by Cthulhu, posted 04-01-2004 5:35 PM Mnenth has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 80 (96696)
04-01-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:29 PM


Oh dear, yet another repeat of the "no transtitional fossils" argument. How about Seymouria, Acanthostega and Ambulocetus to name just three well-known examples ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:29 PM Mnenth has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 3 of 80 (96697)
04-01-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:29 PM


*facepalm*
We've found hundreds of missing links. Would you like me to list some of them?
Archaeopteryx
Microraptor
Cryptovolans
Omnivoropteryx
Caudipteryx
Rahonavis
Unenlagia
Jehelornis
Beipaiosaurus
Eotyrannus
Sinovenator
Sinosauropteryx
Bambiraptor
Sinornithosaurus
Protarchaeopteryx
[This message has been edited by Cthulhu, 04-01-2004]

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:29 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:53 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 80 (96705)
04-01-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Cthulhu
04-01-2004 5:35 PM


Those species are separate species (some are cousins or other close relatives). But look at the numbers. Common sense shows that the number of transitional phases in a species evolution outnumbers the beginning and end results a billion to 1. So why aren't there millions of finds showing macroevolution from one specie to another? They may find one COUSIN or close relative to that specie, and call it a missing link, but they can't even find the link between the original specie, and the missing link! Adn common sense shows that they should be finding them more redily then they would find the final specie (or the beginning). So you never did answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Cthulhu, posted 04-01-2004 5:35 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 04-01-2004 6:43 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 6:45 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 6:48 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 8 by DC85, posted 04-01-2004 6:59 PM Mnenth has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 80 (96723)
04-01-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:53 PM


quote:
Those species are separate species (some are cousins or other close relatives).
Of course they are separate species. Do you think that they are supposed to be the same species? So you want examples of animals becoming different species, but yet complain that we find separate species?
quote:
But look at the numbers. Common sense shows that the number of transitional phases in a species evolution outnumbers the beginning and end results a billion to 1.
I hardly think it is a billion to 1. For you to know this you would already have to know the number of species in a lineage. This is not known. Secondly, why do you think that every species that ever lived has to have been fossilized. You do realize that no one has ever found a fossilized passenger pigeon. This species went extinct 100 years ago, so without their being observed by humans their existance may have never been known. So, fossilization of a species is not a guarantee. Secondly, we have not looked at every single sediment layer that exists. We have probably looked at about 0.0000000001% of the available fossils that are preserved in the earth, and this is a pretty generous estimate. Thirdly, land is destroyed through subduction, these fossils are sent to their demise in the hot magma of the inner earth. There are only a few places on earth that contain rock that has not been touched since the formation of the earth. Through all of this, you want examples of every single species that has ever lived. I guess you will have to be disappointed.
I guess the question becomes how many fossils do you require before you will believe in macroevolution, a process that we even observe today? Could you give us a rough estimate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:53 PM Mnenth has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 80 (96724)
04-01-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:53 PM


Those species are separate species
Yup. So are all transitionals. All fossils are transitionals. All extant species are transitionals.
Questions: What percentage of all organisms fossilize? What are the biases that select some species for fossilization more than others? What percentage of fossils do we find?
When you know the answers to those questions, you can formulate your original question in a meaningful way. Until you compare the number of transitionals we do find the the number of transitionals that we expect to find if evolution is true, your queston is meaningless.
You might find it interesting to browse Human Evolution and learn about the literally hundreds of transitional fossils we have found in our human ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:53 PM Mnenth has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 80 (96726)
04-01-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:53 PM


So why aren't there millions of finds showing macroevolution from one specie to another?
You have a dad, right? And you're different than your dad, at least a little bit, right?
So where's the missing link between you and your father? Since there isn't one, is that proof that you're not your father's child?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:53 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 8 of 80 (96730)
04-01-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:53 PM


Those species are separate species (some are cousins or other close relatives).
Of course they are separate species.
I will give you that they Might very well not be "the" transitional creature... its Impossible to say for sure... But what we can say is that it is or is a close relative to the transitional creature.
So why aren't there millions of finds showing macroevolution from one specie to another.
You must also Realize the right conditions for something to fossilize are extremely rare. So we Can't find EVERY single transitional species.
but they can't even find the link between the original specie, and the missing link!
What the heck is an Original Species? If you knew anything about Evolution you would know there is NO Original Species (except the very first life form.)
Why can't People understand Evolution isn't a latter? There is no goal for evolution...(except to survive).
Also by the way at least we have evidence(unlike christens etc...)
[This message has been edited by DC85, 04-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:53 PM Mnenth has not replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 80 (96731)
04-01-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 6:48 PM


my father didnt evolve into me. Yes microevolution happens. But not to the point of macro evolution. What I'm saying is, that there should be so many more fossils found that are undeniable one specie evolving into another. I understand that most animals dont get fossilised, but there should have been far more transitional animals then the final thing. And that would be represented in the fossils we find. But it isnt. Why?
Oh, and yes they should be the same specie. You say that this animal evolved into this other one, so A BECAME B, so in fact, they should be the same specie, just changed.
quote:I guess the question becomes how many fossils do you require before you will believe in macroevolution, a process that we even observe today?
That statement is false. Macroevolution has not be "observed" at all. Someone just takes the evidence, then they want to believe so badly that it is the proof that they were looking for, that they convince themselves that it IS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:26 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 9:55 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 10:42 PM Mnenth has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 80 (96737)
04-01-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:05 PM


i understand that YOUR original specie is a primitive single celled bacteria, and i understand that evolution is a constant thing, like water flowing. what i meant by an "original specie" whas the first specie you would look at. the circle in my original post. Say dinosaurs evolved into birds, pick a dinosaur, and the bird it supposedly evolved into, and freeze that picture. The dinosaur is the original specie, and the bird is the result. i realize that evolution continues, and that the dinosaur is a result of something else, but it was what you would call a "successfull specie". I am also saying that if you look at them in a line, you can't prove that dinosaur A evolved into bird B. There is some evidence that you could interpret as supporting that theory, but not enough to honestly say that that specie evolved into another specie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:05 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 7:35 PM Mnenth has replied
 Message 12 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:41 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 7:49 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 11:51 PM Mnenth has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 80 (96738)
04-01-2004 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:26 PM


Ehe dinosaur is the original specie, and the bird is the result. i realize that evolution continues, and that the dinosaur is a result of something else, but it was what you would call a "successfull specie"
So are all the fossils we find, and all the transitionals, and all the species extant today, and all the species that ever existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:26 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:44 PM JonF has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 80 (96742)
04-01-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:26 PM


let me reitterate what i have been saying, because i dont think you fully understand my question. The number of transitional animals between 2 species compared to the number of those species is far greater. Meaning that there SHOULD BE far more transitional species then the starting specie and ending specie. I realize the whole evolution is a continuing proccess thing, but if you look at 1 species evolution, count it as the beginning, and what it was supposed to have evolved into as the end, there are supposed to be countless (well not countless, but alot) of species in between. And we haven't found them. Sometimes a specie that LOOKS like it could be a part of that train is found, then thrown in, but where are the rest? The RATIO of fossils found should be far more half and half creatures (or partially evolved), then complete species. And its not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:26 PM Mnenth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 8:19 PM Mnenth has replied

Mnenth
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 80 (96743)
04-01-2004 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by JonF
04-01-2004 7:35 PM


Quote:So are all the fossils we find, and all the transitionals, and all the species extant today, and all the species that ever existed.
if every specie that ever existed was successful, why did they even evolve? they would have no need to, because they were succssesful.
Note: i wont get to reply till tommorrow, cause i wont be online untill then, so dont look for one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 7:35 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cynic1, posted 04-01-2004 8:12 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 04-01-2004 8:12 PM Mnenth has not replied
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 04-01-2004 8:31 PM Mnenth has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 80 (96746)
04-01-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:26 PM


Denial of evidence does not make evidence go away
Funny we just had a topic a little while ago about
What is your favorite example of speciation?
I will repeat try foramins
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...y/creation/foram_article3.html
also try pelycodus
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/pelycodus.html
and if that is not enough, look at therapsids
http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
please see the fifth from the bottom on
AiG's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" list
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
then read the whole thing.
... really should put together a list of transitional fossils named steve ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:26 PM Mnenth has not replied

Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6075 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 15 of 80 (96751)
04-01-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:44 PM


quote:
if every specie that ever existed was successful, why did they even evolve? they would have no need to, because they were succssesful.
This is what happens when you simplify, you get black and white instead of shades of grey. Earlier forms were successful, later forms were even more successful. Evolution is about increasing survivability odds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:44 PM Mnenth has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024