Missing Link

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:There is no such thing (and there never has been) as a half and half credatureYou KNOW what I mean. Stop being nit picky about my word choice and look at what i am trying to say. I admit that i was wrong about the succsessful specie thing, but the fact remains: that there is a huge gap in the fossil evidence connecting species. All you have are a handfull of debateable examples.

quote:If separate breeding populations arise for the two, you end up with different species - I know they're still rabbits - like we see with snowshoe hares and other American bunnies. But there is absolutely no mechanism in nature to keep this process from continuing, with changes in other that coat color, until, say, one of the descendant species of one of these initial groups looks like a capybara - they're rodents, too.First thing here, yes coat color can change. That is manipulation of existing genetic material. To COMPLETELY change to another specie i.e. would require that entirely new genetic material be added, which your body can't create. Even when genetic material is combined, through fertilization, you only can get different combinations of the parents genes, not entirely new genetic information. It just isnt possible for an animal to get the genetic information to say, grow legs. It just isnt there.

quote:It's not a half-and-half chimera of indeterminate species. It's a well-formed example of it's own species. Transitional species are still speciesi realize that. im just not explaining myself right. im not using the proper terminology. Let me correct myself. A transitional specie between two species would have physical characteristics of both species. And there would be hundreds, if not thousands of transitional species (each having varying amounts of each of the "parent" species characteristics) in the process of one specie evolving into another far down the road (for example dinosaurs and birds). If dinosaurs DID evolve into birds, there should be more archeopterix like creatures found. I dont mean that they need to find them all. Or even most But at least some. They find one, and call it good.

crashfrog, in mutation, the genetic material is slightly changed. It is slightly different, but still basically the same. And of course we would need new genes to add any new body part. Adding things like body parts, or getting rid of body parts requires a great deal of genetic information. MOre than what mutation allows for. Even if it did, it would take a great deal of time, and the limb would slowly get smaller, and smaller, then finally dissapear. Then that would create your "chimera", which you so vehemotly are against. So you are arguing against yourself.

i concur, they dont call it good.

they are debateable because only some believe that they prove that one specie evolved into another.

THERE"S NOT TO MANY NEW BODY PARTS IN EVOLUTION? You are saying, by believing in evolution, that all life came from a single celled bacterium!! Where are the "specialized" limbs there, huh?quote: No. In invertebrates, legs are turned on and off with single genes.we arent invertabrates. Neither are dinosaurs. Or birds. Sure invertabrates legs turn on and off with a single gene, but you say dinosaurs evolved into birds, and their limbs are far more intrecate than an insects.

The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.by your own admission, this new specie was a fluke. An accident. Not a specie slowly adapting to its environment. That rat doesnt prove evolution at all. It is an accident, not proof.

yeah, i've heard that too, about the suffocating. And its been proven that in general, species tend to grow larger with a higher amount of qxygen present. But i dont see how this helps your point. in fact, this hurts you. If creatures adapt to the point where they grow limbs, and change their entire physical makeup, wouldnt they be able to adapt to the SLOW loss of oxygen?[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-01-2004][This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-01-2004]