|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Missing Link | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mnenth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Oh dear, yet another repeat of the "no transtitional fossils" argument. How about Seymouria, Acanthostega and Ambulocetus to name just three well-known examples ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5883 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
*facepalm*
We've found hundreds of missing links. Would you like me to list some of them? ArchaeopteryxMicroraptor 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mnenth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mnenth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mnenth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mnenth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mnenth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Funny we just had a topic a little while ago about
What is your favorite example of speciation? I will repeat try foraminshttp://www.cs.colorado.edu/...y/creation/foram_article3.html also try pelycodushttp://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/pelycodus.html and if that is not enough, look at therapsidshttp://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm please see the fifth from the bottom onAiG'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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cynic1 Member (Idle past 6105 days) Posts: 78 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024