Where are all the missing links?

I wasn't looking to get into serious debate about this but had a question about Evolution. I hope the 'Coffee Shop' is the appropriate place to pose it.A I understand it, ToE says we evolved from lesser animals. The basic mechanisms are 'genetic mutation' which provide diverse 'options' and 'survival of the fittest' which culls the less suitable options to leave one or a few successful options which survive to propagate the successful genes. Repeat for millions years to get the diversity we have today.From what I gather, folk who say evolution didn't happen point to the lack of definitive 'transistional' or 'link fossils' in amongst the millions of fossils already found. The argument seems to be that many fossils should display obvious signs of developing into something else whereas most seem to be perfectly formed for the task at hand.'Archeaopteryx' is posed as an example of the 'link' between reptile and bird, but it's very rarity as a 'find' and the fact it is much-debated seems to illustrate the apparent problem, ie: such 'demonstrable' links seem to be a relative rarity whereas we could expect there to be many of them.Flight of any description would have been a major boon and presumably such a creature would have done very well. Is there a flush of fossils indicating this boon and if not, why not.Generally speaking, has there been a rarity of obvious link-fossils with a tentitive but workable toe in it's history or future (it would seem 'sensible' to hang on to your former function until the new advantageous function was in some way operational ). If so, why is that?This message has been edited by iano, 09-Aug-2005 12:22 PM

Thanks for the post all that haveA general comment to all is that I'm not here to attack evolution nor to set traps. I don't know anything about evolution except the very broadest outline and I wouldn't mind understanding a bit more of the mechanisms whereby it has become so established. So if my question seem to be doubting it, know that that's not the case. I'm neutral (although a Christian) and can, objectively, have no way of knowing either way. If a question sounds like doubting or challenging, please see it as arising from genuine enquiry. IOW, are the mechanisms for ToE unique to evolution or could another yet to be discovered, yet very disimilar method of development be possibleQuestion:I understand the numbers method for linking species in a chain and understand the reasoning. As I understand it different species today have a different line of decent from others until you get to the ancestor common to them all. That is the chain analogy you talked about I think.Imagine if we were to fossilize one example of a large number of very different species that live today and made no reference to age or location etc - just took the fossils on their own merits. Would it be possible to form a chain from species so that a 1,2,...4..6.7..9...13,14,15... line of descent could be drawn through them? A line which has the same extrapolations and assumptions that I suppose must (and I don't say it's not reasonable to so) be applied in forming a real chain?This message has been edited by iano, 10-Aug-2005 08:52 PM

I have read creationist literature and admit openly that alot of it reeks of propaganda. There is some good stuff in it but at the end of the day - as I posed on EI - I am not in a position to truly evaluate one way or the other. But in so far as I can, some of it makes good sense.I've also had the same feeling re: evolution. Most of what I've seen or heard has that flavor of "it's true and here's a bit more for you to add to the picture" Some of it (here too) makes very good sense.I'm a Christian and will debate to the ends of the earth against someone who says No God. I've also argued about Evolutionary Indoctrination - not because I'm a creationist (which I have said on more that one occasion I'm not - but because I feel most certainly that many folks believe soley because they were told it was true)If someone put a gun to my head and said I had to make a guess I would say evolution isn't true. But if they put a gun to my head and said "say God doesn't exist" then my last earthly thought would be "BANG!!"Different levels of knowledge altogether. And I'm here to find out about the formerP.S. Like I said I'm not looking for a big debate. More like the big central lines. How does evolution work, how does it get over problems etc.what are the main proofs and reasonings. Not in depth..just the outline sketch. I'm up to my neck in it down at "God vs. No God...that is the question (for athiests)" so will probably just tap in from time to time if that's okay. Will read it all at the weekend for sure thoIano

Was one of them Romans? Just curious...

You actually managed to plough you way through Leviticus and Revelation?!! If I wore a hat I'd take it off. 4 years Christian and I'd quiver in me boots at the thought Cheers

Sorry to do a lurk n' launch on you CP. I've read your post with interest as it is one of the rare times that someone puts the case across cooly and calmly with the minimum (if any) philosophical rethoric. Typical CP in fact I don't know if evolution occurred and if it did it would cause my faith not a moments trouble. Whatever trouble I do have with evolution is the way facts are presented as being facts. The above mentioned make uniformist presumptions. But there is no mention that this is being presumed. Until uniformatisim is shown to be fact, the facts on which the model is based are presumptions. Are they not? Saying "cannot arise" without firm evidence that it can is, to my mind not how theories work. I could say God exists and created it all in 6 literal days and nothing could stop him. I'd be immediately asked for evidence. Toe makes a positive statment about how it happened. ToE needs, does it not, to provide relevant evidence for the claims it makes. Evidence along the lines that "there is nothing to prevent it happening" is not evidence for the theory.From which demonstrable precursors then:- our spiritual dimension (the millions who recognise they have one)
- our aesthetic dimension
- our self-consciousness
- our propositional language
- our moral dimensionWould we not find that a massive jump has to be made to our nearest 'relative' and equally massive assumptions have to be made about our characteristics being highly evolved froms of animal instinct. Is the reasoning not that we have patent advantage over the animals thus similarities (not sameness) in behavior are evidence of evolution? Is this reason not circular? IOW: the only evidence is the presumption of evolution which will be disposed (EI-like ) to analysis animal behaviour within the context of it being a precursor of human behavior. A scientific version of a human who humanizes their pet dog and attributes some of it's actions as being 'almost' human.Is there not a behavioural missing-link, the gap between the chain to which it is supposedly attached at either end being of a ravine-sized nature?This message has been edited by iano, 08-Sep-2005 01:56 PM

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

If there is little or no evidence that can back up a theory then it is not a theory anymore, surely. Is such an entity not a hypothesis or maybe only something that is postulated?The trouble with ToE to my mind, is that it is presented as a "whole thing". When I arrived on this site I quickly get the impression (although I am open to correction) that:- no branch in itself supports the theory by itself. All branches need to be considered together. "Take the global view" I am urged. But if I want to design a machine that works it's important that the cogs and gears fit will together. So I don't take a global view- I've been talking with AEA about speciation and in the course of that thread found out (thus far) that there appears to be no clear observation that speciation occurs in nature. Man can force something to happen in plants and flies but it's very much like creating life in a lab - it says nothing objective at all about whether it could happen in nature. The experiment achieves a result because it is designed to achieve the result. As soon as it does, the manufactured result is inserted in as supporting the theory. But only as artifical sweetener is to sugar.- folk here seem to hold the view that fossils don't support ToE in and of themselves. The evolutionary tree has no basis in fact. The tips of the tree are all that we know: distinct species. Due to scarity of link data, there is nothing to show us the shape of the branches and roots that bind these nodal points all together. When we are presented with an evolutionary tree we are seeing a projection of an illusion. Not anything that has actually been established as fact.- I'm not a scientist but can't help thinking that ToE reliance on the assumption of uniformatism is a fundemental weakness. How many strands of ToE science rely on something which cannot it itself ever be shown to be the case (except if one assumes that evolution occurred in a uniformist world).When folk say the theory is well-substantiated they never include the degree to which every piece of evidence is considered in the light of the assumptions on which it is based. And on the assumptions on which other branches of science on which it relies is based. Assumption seem to be the glue which holds the whole thing together. Assumption piled upon assumption.The oft heard statement (defence) "theories remain tentitive forever" does nothing to describe how tentitive they are.Question: How tentitive is ToE due to missing links and everything else and how does one measure that. Is ToE a 2% explaination or a 925 explaination and how do we know which?Queston: Is there anything anybody actually 'knows' about evolution that is true in and of itself. Anthing, which doesn't rely on some other sub-theory or assumption. Any evidence that the glue holding this whole thing together is anything but a branch and root jumble of assumptions. Anything concrete which shows evolution happened - not could happen?I'd sure like to know if there was...

I'm in a different time zone so have to rush homeChoice of wording understood. A theory poses a model for the way things are and thus by default makes predictions about what we will find. For the theory to be worth anything I imagine it should predict something that isn't equally explainable by something else. Particle theory of light is demolished when something else (wave theory) explains the evidence. Light is not a particle AND a wave - it must be something else.Is there any clear evidence which is predicted by ToE and not by something else. Species mutating in nature but not turning into something else can be better explained by Species Mutate But Don't Change To Another Species Theory. Link species (of which there is a dearth) which attach to nothing at either end (an embarkation point and a destination) can too be better explained by the immutablity of species that that theory predicts (given that origins of life for both are equally indeterminate). Survival of the fittest can stand equally well in both theories - both predict that species will become extinct.Things like age of the earth and partition of species due to continental drift or whatever don't impart particular advantage (as far as I can see) to one theory over the otherWhat has ToE got that the other hasn't?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

I've posed a question to NWR above which you may like to answer to. It has to with the above quote. I haven't spent as much time but archaeoptrix is one I oft heard mentioned. As often as I've heard the expression "one swallow (sic) doesn't make a summer". Archaeoptrix had feathers. What does it have in particular however which demonstrates it evolved as opposed being designed. You don't see many amphibious vehicles around but when you do you know they were designed that way. Just a rearrangment of features and componants found elsewhere - which is what I, when I am designing machines do. As I've said to NWR, evolution of Archie would be demonstrated to be such if he were linked to something concrete at either end: Archie-but-with-scales-turning-into-feathers and Archie-with-bird-like-teeth. What is it about Archie that says he is not a stand alone species. I imagine many wierd and wonderful creatures have existed and become extinct. Archies is weird and wonderful. Who can say anything more than that. Which goes to show how little can be gleaned from a fossil. I don't know if Archie flew. Maybe he glided. Whatever, the feathers would not convey advantage if he was stuck on the ground (otherwise many non-birds would have feathers and you say none do). To glide or fly means being in possession of things that dino-lizards don't have. Muscles suited to the purpose, a central nervous system that could provide some basics of aeronautics: trim, weight distribution, landing skills. You don't get to glide and fly by sticking some feathers on Archie, Icarus-style. Where are the precursors and why are they presumed when there is no evidence to say they can exist I have done puzzles and I know that you have to get some pieces to link together before the picture starts to form. Having pieces which don't link together but are placed on the table on the basis of a predisposed notion of what the picture is going to look like eg: arrange the pieces according to colour, in an arc,on the presumption that the picture formed is going to be a rainbow - is a recipe for anything. Each new piece upturned leads to excitement because it fits the puzzle your making. It says nothing about the puzzle as it is. I think you are mis-interpreting uniformatism as meaning the world is predictable and ordered. It's doesn't mean that. Uniformatisim says that the processes we observe today are the same as the processes that have occurred for ever. If the half life of Uranium changed over time due to natural processes, the world would be predictable - Uranium is changin it's half life according to the immutable and predictable laws of nature. But Uranium would be a useless clock with which to determine the age of rocks if the half life it has today is not the same half life as it had 50,000 years ago. We presume the clock doesn't lose or gain time. We don't know however - unless we presume uniformatism. That Uranium might lose/gain time wouldn't impinge in the slightest on the body of science as a whole. It would just mean we can't date rocks accurately. So what. There is plenty we don't know and it doesn't stop us...Presuming uniformatism is okay for something which can be observed to be uniform. It is not okay to presume it of something we cannot know. Chiroptera earlier used the 'fact' that species produce more offspring that are required for survival of that species - in describing a thumbnail sketch of ToE. But what conditions prevailed then which might totally change that fact? If one doesn't know, one cannot presume - without weakening the theory. Theories derive their strength when evidence is found which matches the prediction it makes (see post above to NWR if you feel you have some evidence). A thoery is not strenghtened by adding unfounded and untestable presumption.This message has been edited by iano, 08-Sep-2005 09:48 PM

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

The question was clear evidence. Does 'plenty of evidence' suffer from the same problem as "speciation occurs in the lab", ie: is the evidence being interpreted in the light of the presumption that evolution is occuring? Making the facts fit the theory in other words? Uniformatism is a presumption made, under which light the so-called geologic columm is constructed. Finding species which appear 'later' in the column would be fantastic evidence for ToE - but only if the uniformatism is fact not presumption.This seems to be a core problem with ToE, it's theories all the way down. Infinite regression but never landing on something solid on which we can strike out and know the evidence is in fact evidence. Every aspect of it appear to be built on a foundation of an unfounded presumption. That ToE is fantastically complex and interesting doesn't free it from it's position of a bootstrap arguement.I asked somewhere is there anything about ToE which anyone knows with certainty to be true. This would require a firm, non presumed piece of foundation at some point. Is there one, anywhere?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Which makes assumptions about what a designer would and could do and why. Which is a position you cannot comment on in any way shape or form. Animals do strange things and nature programmes are fascinating when they illustrate the reasons behind these strange habits. There is a reason for them. That we do not know the reason doesn't automatically mean we can presume evolution - unless we take the unscienctific route and try and make the evidence fit the theory.What specifically is there about Archie that says he is a product of evoutions and not just a stand alone species. The meaning of missing link is that it can be tied to something concrete at both ends. Does he not fit the theory of Immutable Species better than the ToE precisely because he doesn't link with anything So the theory is now trying to explain why evidence for it cannot be found. Hmmmm. Don't worry about birds fossiling well. Archie fossilised perfectly well it would seem. So when we get Archie mark 0 with scales turning into feathers and Archies mark II with bird like teeth then Archie can be called a missing link. At the moment he links nothing at all. Except in the minds of those who want him to.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

I base it on the fact that science "as a whole" does not rely on uranium half-life to be constant over large periods of time. In the sciences that are concerned with uranium half-life, we can still build our power stations and run our clocks and do very many other things. What areas of science would be affected by uranium not being constant over long periods of time - except historical sciences.And so what if the physics involved in those areas underwent upheaval? Physics only describes what is. It is subservient to what is, not the other way around. Why did I think someone would say that? It takes one to know the other isn't. In which case you could be the one to describe what characteristics of Archie are better explained by ToE than it is by Species are Immutable. And why. Note that the commonality of features between species is explained equally well be common descent and common designer. I'm looking for something which hauls ToE into a unique zone.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

The 'other theory' says the designer made all species as they are - ie: Archie is not an intermediate form. You didn't take account of that is your argument.If you accept that that theory says he made all species as they are without intermediate forms then say so...in which case Archie fits more easily into Species are Immutable than ToE. If you say otherwise, on what basis?Is there any difference between either theory as to how it goes about making predictions or assumptions. You say Archie isn't the missing link - because he is not missing. You didn't say anything about what he links however. Until you do, then the only thing we can say about the missing link - is that it is still missingRemember, Archie fits Creation theory better until such time as he fits something else better. Thems the rules of the game PK

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

I'm glad you enjoy posting with me. I enjoy posting with everyone bar hit and run lurkers. Of which you aren't one I was asking for evidence of ME. I was given Archie. But wasn't told why he is an example of ME. ME predicts intermediate forms. Archie or anything else can only be said to be an intermediate form when he is shown to such. And to my mind, Archie linking to something definitive at either end is the minimum requirement. Either he is a link or he isn't. He's not an elastic band.All I kow is that I won't swallow ToE in the way it is presented. The very clutching to Archie as significant when there is no particular reason to consider him so just serves to raise my suspicions. We don't observe species becoming other species in nature. If someone says they do then they need to make a case. Archie ain't it. Show me Archie with downy non-flight feathers and I'll take a big step towards accepting evolution. Downy feather don't exist (as far as I know) on any non-bird. There are evidently more efficient ways to keep warm so why would downy feathers that can't fly be retained by natural selection?A peacock tail serves a number of purposes. Cut it off and see how well it flies. That you compromise on specific function in order to achieve the best overall result is a familiar situaton to anyone who designs machines. Honest!Feathers evolved before flight (actually, pterasaurs were flying without feathers, as were insects) because they offered certain advantages. Circular reasoning. Your presuming evolution happened to explain that evolution happened. Sorry I'd bet you he wouldn't. He probably wouldn't find a mate and would become extinct I presume Archie is famout for the same reasons the other aren't. There was something 'obviously' intermediatary about him that the other hadn't got. If clear links could be made between them and him then it would be shouted from the rooftops. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but three? Why the silence? Is it because there isn't clear links between them. That there is difficulty in obtaining fossil evidence is a problem for the theory not for the people who remain to be convinced. To say "we don't have the evidence because of a,b,c..." can only, I hope you would agree, be taken by the skeptical, with a pinch of Jurassic period salt. Try win a court case like that..Other stuff you mention here suffers from the same start point that presumes evolution happens. It doesn't matter were it stops. Sciences job is to deal with what is, not what it would like it to be. I suspect the vast majority of science would be unaffected by a lack of uniformitism over the ages. Operational science is founded on the assumption that things operate according to the (assumed) immutability (that word again) of the laws of nature - not uniformatism. If things operated remarkably differently 10000 years ago then it wouldn't affect operational science today. What difference if water boiled at 84 degrees 10,000 years ago because of lower athmospheric pressure then. The laws of nature were the same, athmospheric pressure was what it was because of those laws.By all means presume uniformatism but add the rider to every calculation based on it that the calculation has no absolute basis in fact. Nosy Ned was inviting folk to head down to the 'dating' forum. I may well take him up on his offer. I can't say of course, but I strongly suspect I'll find the same assumption stacked on assumption there that I find here.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Intermediate. To what does this link attach to at either end. And if it is alleged to attach to something, then why aren't the bits to which Archie attaches as famous as he is?. Is it because there is nothing to which he firmly attaches? He stands alone... a feathered reptile.You may chose to decide that God is ludicrous and the evolution is acceptable. That's a phiosophical position. Science says look at the evidence - the hard facts. If you chose to make unfounded assumptions then so can I. Flinging in "Green Cheese" and "Pah! Creationist" comments demonstrate the weakness of your position not the strength of it. Richard Dawkins says in the Blind Watchmaker something along the lines of (copy at home so you'd have to wait for the page number if you want it): "An argument from incredulity is no argument at all" I tend to agree.The theory which best explains the evidence is the best theory. A feathered reptile with no definitive link to its predecessor or successor is better explained by immutable species - AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. By all means hold to the view that this will change but we're talking NOW not when. Evolution predicts intermediate forms. Now let the evidence show that Archie is an intermediate from. Start with a reptile-like creature with fully formed feathers. Where did the feathers come from. What precursor is there for them? Reptilian scales? If your happy to call that a link then fair enough. We have reached the nub of the issue. You find that acceptable as a link. I don't. We can end our dicussion here. Au contraire mon amis. It predicts that intermediate species won't be found. S'pose it all depends on what one classes as 'intermediate' doesn't it. Seems we're at stalemate m8

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."