Where are all the missing links?

First I would like to ask why out of the many, many millions of species that must have existed there are among the untold millions of fossils in museums today perhaps a dozen so called transitional forms when given the bacteria to human story there must have been millions of transitional forms between species.One could just ask for directions to the museum(s) where all the transitional forms are that give rise to the simple vertebrates .. sort of fill in between the simple one celled creatures and the simple vertebrates. It would be a long wait since such do not exist anywhere.. prove me wrong show me the concrete undisputed such items.Or what about the transitions from simple invertebrates to the first vertebrates say the fishes ,,, tell me where do I go to see the transitional forms leading up to fish... answer nowhere, they do not exist... prove me wrong show the place .. there would be tens of thousands of such entities.And then there are the flowering plants .. where are the fossils for the precursors to them with all those transitional forms... nada nowhere ... show me the place to see them.. I want to see them so badly.Was evolution too slow to see or too fast to see these million of upon millions of transitional forms that undoubtedly had to exist under evolutionary theory... less than a dozen and those always disputed among the evolutions.Please tell me you don't subscribe to embryonic recapitualtion after its death three decades ago or that tonsils and appendices serve no purpose.. vestigial indeed .. not held by anyone to be true for three decades.Time is running out on this scientific hoax,Evopeach

Yes I looked and so far,The problem here is that although choanoflagellates seem clearly related to sponges, it is not clear how closely related sponges are to the rest of the Metazoa. It is also difficult to see how such a poorly organized organism as a sponge (essentially nothing but a glorified colonial protozoan) can develop into organisms with a proper body structure and internal organs. The most widely held theory seems to be that a colonial choanoflagellate evolved into a hollow spherical ball of cells, the blastula, which constitutes the earliest embryonic stage of development, and even occurs in sponges. The 'blastula model' of metazoan evolution goes all the way back to the famous 19th century German Darwinist Ernst Haskell.In fact it is now known that Haekel faked a number of his images, chopping up the embryos so they would more closely resemble his theoretical predictions. (blastula "model" developer...hmmm)All we can say for certain is that, some time during the Late Proterozoic era, an unknown protozoan (or protistan) organism developed into a tiny colonial form, which eventually became the common ancestor of the Metazoa. The actual nature of this organism is not known, as it was soft-bodied and left no trace. It used to be thought that sponges evolved from a different single celled organism to higher animals (in which case the Metazoa are a polyphyletic taxon), but recent molecular phylogenetic evidence indicates this is not the case.There are no fossils of choanoflagellates; drawings are not fossils.See all those dashed lines (95%) of the drawings mean there is no fossil evidence... its conjecture, period.PLease tell me this is not where hats are being hung on paragraphs with more qualifying words like many be could be must have supposed theoretically ... thats prose not science

Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of GALT as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine. The immune response mediated by the appendix may also relate to such inflammatory conditions as ulcerative colitis. In adults, the appendix is best known for its tendency to become inflamed, necessitating surgical removal.... Scientific American and documented references theretohttp://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1029/1/337 first weeks of life bacterial uptake etc. performed by the appendix.Another plastic all encompassing meaningless assertion all species are transtional forms between their ancestors and decendents ... wow what a singular statement. Thsi statement has no reference in evolutionary thought from Darwin to Dawkins its a preposterousnothing statement without meaning. Laughable

So if every species now extant and all those in the past and assuming these slight differences were the product of mutation and natural selection for the main then there should be millions of transitional forms between the first time a species became reproductively isolated from the species that gave rise to it in direct decent. I mean unless you're a proponent of Goldschmitt and such there would be millions of point mutations some leading off to never never land and some accumulating in the intermediates that are successful. They too in time accumulate enough changge as to become reproductively isolated from their parent species ad finitum.SO where are the fossil millions of identifiable transitional intermediates ,, more than say a dozen in the world.I see lots of pretty diagrams in your references, no fossils and plenty of maybees, perhaps, it is believed, we conclud , it must have been... my oh my science at its best.. Still from the single celled ancestor to the sponge not one fossil presented over millions of years to show these changes.Nice of you to note that science does pretty routinely discredit evolutionary conclusions.

So for a hundred years beginning with Darwin and through a few hours ago when you redefined the importance of the fossil record...quite a feat by declaring every living thing is right now a transitional form between our successor and our predacessor species, in fact every cell in the germ line that has a mutation is a transitional form contributor so that all those millions of hours collecting fossils and performing various categorizations of the plant and animal kingdoms by analyzing the fossil evidence over 3 billion years or whatever as proof of evolution and decent was a sideshow, a luxory, a hobby of evolutionists... too bad for the paleontology folks.. relegated to a sort of phrenologist of the evolutionary community.Apparently although millions of such intermediates and transitional forms are around today and by you always. they mysteriously disappear once they die because no one can find them anywhere and put them on display in any significant numbers. Think of it 9 billion transitional forms around today and not one of them will be around for examination say 1,000 years from now.Yes sir scientific thought at its best.

The panda has been aroung a very long time as a panda.. period no argument see their fossil record.The panda has always had the bone extension (not a thumb at all never was a thumb) yet the panda has done remarkably well using the bone to strip bamboo its basic diet .. so Mr. Panda might say let me talk for myself.. I like my bamboo stripping bone extension, it works exactly for the purpose I need it for. I have survived a long long time using it for such a purpose.

Please elucidate those direct line ancestors from a few million years ago and how it was that although they had the bone extension you know they didn't ever eat any bamboo ... now what pathologist exhumed those panda ancestors, examined their stomach contents and said see no bamboo. And can you define cousin in some scientific terms other than "anything that has a thumb and doesn't eat bamboo".Evopeach

Heres is one you might contemplate. The human brain as we currently understand it. Now do you consider it to be just a few slight differences away from another animal brain in some nearby relative past or present.Now of course to be truly transitional we would have to see how consciousness of ourselves and conceptual thought arose as a functional aspect of the brain in humans and nowhere else in all of life period. If you can show these processes to any degree in other species past or present that can be linked by mutation and natural selection you can easily win a Nobel prize... waiting.Evolutionists still haven't gotten past it looks similar and there is some common functionality in some degree or other therefore they are mutationally related. How about common element of design with particularity of non-common function from the get go as an illustration of efficiency in design principles ... all pipe threads turn to the right to tighten a device. Are all devices using threads related in purpose by a few little differences.

You have demonstrated nothing and teaching a dumb ape to stack blocks has absolutely nothing to do with my question. You have not and cannot point to an animal that demonstrates self awareness, knowledge of death, conceptual thought and significant invention of language and linguistic talent. Me eat you give orange eat me orange me you give ... Very impressive.I rather suspect people who encourgage their women staff members to show their breasts to a gorilla to promote bonding have more screws loose than is typical, even among evolutionists who apparently believe in anything from flying saucers to linquisticly capable parrots."Other scientists dismiss such conclusions, contending she does not understand the meaning behind what she is doing, but learns to complete the signs simply because the researchers reward her for doing so, representing her actions as a result of operant conditioning. Such debate requires careful consideration of what it means to 'learn' or 'use' a language.To gain a rudimentary understanding you might start here.Operant conditioning, sometimes called instrumental conditioning or instrumental learning, was first extensively studied by Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949).Further from Columbia U I believe with Nim ChimpskyHowever, the results were not as impressive as had been reported from the Washoe project, and from another project with the gorilla Koko. While Nim did learn 125 signs, the study concluded that he hadn't acquired anything the researchers were prepared to designate worthy of the name "language" although he had learned to repeat his trainers' signs in appropriate contexts. Nim's longest recorded utterance was "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." Terrace and his colleagues concluded that the chimpanzee did not show any meaningful sequential behavior that rivaled human grammar, and indeed that there was nothing that Nim could be taught that could not equally well be taught to a pigeon using the principles of operant conditioning. They were therefore led to question the claims that had been made on behalf of Washoe, and to argue that the apparently impressive results may have resulted from a relatively informal experimental approach.I taught my dog to sit with a stack of oreos... does that mean she knows where sugar comes from.. Rediculous.Get it.. you have done nothing to demonstrate anything credible.. show me the papers and evidence on the accepted theory of how consciousness arises from the molecular arrangement of carbon based chemistry alone ... let's see the documentation.Oh and about that wacko who spent 20 years watching gorillas have sex... well lets just move on shall we.Evolutionists are a source of comedic entertainment.

In an attempt to not get into trouble I will say that there are zero transitional forms dead or alive that can substantioate the claim that the human brain is jst a few minor genetic muations away from an extant speciaes brain... the gap in cognitive ability, understanding, language skillls, writing skills, self awarenenss and planning for the future we forecast is enourmous and unrealizably complex.The references I provided are from real scientific literature, researchers at leading universities and it is perfectly acceptable as a discussion technique for both parties to use referenced material.Unless of course you were personally on the team of the people working with the most publicized gorillas.. otherwise you're just quoting what was said and written by the proponents and those directly involved.So your team can reference other work but others can't...typical baloney.Oh and you might read the views on monkey talk by Norm Chomsky, you may have heard of him.

I don't recall saying or implying that scientific investigation was in general suspect even considering the Java man, Nebraska man, Peking man deliberate hoaxes of the last century.It does pay to be considered as to cold fusion and other perpetual motion machines presented.The point was that scholarship is extremmely skeptical of these smart gorillas, pigeons, parrots et al and with good reason.... entire studies over a long period of time by reputable people have demonstrated at least to a significant part of the community that the claims are way overblown and explainable by other theories which are not remotely questioned.That in direct conflict with the self serving posts herein claiming some intellectual indisputable victory and subsequent cynical remarks.It turns out to be a tale of pretense and misrepresentation and identified as such by the majority.

This post is off topic. Ring species were used as an example of the difficulty in identifying boundaries between species, and Evopeach is replying as if they had been offered as evidence of evolution and is touting ID, which is not the topic of this thread. Missing links are the topic of this thread. Please, no replies.This is I think relevant because it deals with speciation and transitional forms between same.First I recall that the peppered moth and white moth was used for decades as the primal example of evolution in action mutation and natural selection in every venue. Until it became clear that the experimental data was doctored and fraudulent with full intentionto deceive. There ere both types of moths befora nad after the industrial revolution in England and they all moths... good old pllaon moths.Next in the instant case note the following:In the example we looked at, there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two gull species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding gull population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher.Ring species and similar examples actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds.5 They can be said to demonstrate evolution only to the gullible (pun intended)."References and footnotes
New Scientist, 5th June 1993, p. 37.See C. Wieland, ‘Variation, Information and the Created Kind’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 5 Part I, 1991, pp. 42—47. The usual mechanism proposed is the cumulative selection of ‘uphill’ copying mistakes. However, the observational evidence for such information-adding mutations (as opposed to the occasional loss/defect giving survival valuee.g. eyeless fish in caves) does not appear to exist. On information-theoretical grounds one would expect them to be vanishingly rare if not non-existent.Columbia University Press, 1974, p. 186. Lewontin refers to ‘new mutations’, as he believes that all existing variation came about by copying accidents (‘old mutations’) in the first place. However, that is belief, not observation. Note that a ‘downhill’ mutation can theoretically cause a reproductive barrier (and speciation) without adding any new, functional information.For evidence that this can happen very rapidly, see ‘Darwin’s finchesevidence of rapid post-Flood migration’, Creation magazine Vol. l4 No. 3, June—August 1992, pp. 22—23.It requires enormous amounts of variation to be already present for selection to result in ‘new’ types. A farmer cannot select for bigger eggs from his hens unless the information for this is already in the genes of some of them.Note that the common ancestor of these two gull species was likely already split off from (and genetically depleted compared to) the original kind and it was a bird in every respect.Thus gulls were gulls, fully birds as in moths were just moths both varieties alway there ... is this the best you can do?This message has been edited by Admin, 08-16-2005 07:06 PM

This post is off topic. Please, no replies.Actually the quotes are from the work at Columbia in the literaturre and rather straight forward in meaning. One might rehearse Skinners work as well. They had nothing to do with any creationist publication.Your caustic and demeaning sidebars are of no import to the inquiring mind and I suspect they are not in the spirit of the forum.It is irrational and unintelligent to condition debate on not referring to other bodies of work on the basis of subjective judgment of intent and character. Everone learns most of what they know and understand from others work.Unless there is some fundametal objection to permitting both sides to refer to established works by reputable people I intend to continue and to do so respectfully.I say this believing that there are some on this forum who can maintain an air of decorum and understand that it is possible to become knowledgeable on a subject yet not have a formal degree in each speciality.........or was Lincoln not really a lawyer.This message has been edited by Admin, 08-16-2005 06:59 PM

What you actually have say in the beginning of life .An unknown unfossilized imagined construct of a one celled something then absolutely nothing for millions of years except drawings and dashed lines until a sponge skeleton appears.Now if you believe an imaginary unicelled something can evolve into a sponge with absolutely no evidence of anything intermediate not ever a just so story that is credible ... well thats a faith I cannot myself identify with.Thats not asking for 4.5 thats asking for a few numbers between 1 and a billion.

Not at all.First the idea that most speciation was dependent on being trapped in a box canyon for a million years is fairly unique in human cognition.Second if a small population means breeding between closly related relatives I think we know how advanced those results are advantageous and all that.The adaptations between the trapped in a canyon, incest crowd and the wide ranging larger and more adventurous crowd would hardly be the same since mutations have no interest in anything.
Further the big picture crowd being exposed to a varied and dynamic environment compared to the canyon crowd whose vision and experience is quite limited would be more rigerously examined by natural selection pressures and the odds would be overwhelming that from one common gene pool those so adapted would be the dominate group when the others escaped from the canyon. But these are precisely the group that have resisted change, remaining about the same except for the few really advantageous changes.So in order for the two groups to declare speciation they have to remix for a while otherwise you don't know if they interbreed... definition of speciation.So the degree of change is sufficient to clearly favor the advantages of the big picture crowd but those being so slow and massive in nature as to not leave any intermediate fossils while the quick changing canyon dwellers just didn't die at the right place to be seen in the record and this is the common practice over 3 billion years.I think this should be named the Flounders effect.