Where are all the missing links?

Quote:
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.There are in fact a lot of fossils coming out of China at the moment that show many different animals with various flight / feather characteristics.The reason so many are coming from one area is the extraordinary luck (good for us, bad for them) of a volcanic eruption spewing fine ash and preserving the animals with such detail that we can actually see the feathers.Feathers, by the way, serve as a great indicator for evolution. Only birds have feathers today, but the fossil record shows species with both feathers and "lizard-like" features. Teeth for example.As for your other question - "where are all the missing links?"They are there, but it all depends on who you are talking to. I'm going to use numbers to make myself clear.Say an early species is a 1 and a modern decendant is a 10. If we are lucky we might find 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 in the fossil record. Where is 3? Maybe we haven't found it yet. Maybe it didn't exist for a very long period of time, or there weren't many of them, or it just didn't die in the right place to get fossilized. But not having #3 does not detract from the fact that we have the others and that the pattern is clear.What anti-Evolution people like to say is this: "Yeah, you have all those, but where's the missing link between 1 and 2?"Then someone will discover 1.5 and they say, "Okay, but where's the one between 1 and 1.5?" "Where's the one between 1.25 and 1.5" etcIt doesn't end. No matter how many examples you find, there is always one in between two that you have.It sounds like they literally want every single skeleton of every species over a 300 million year period before they'll agree there is proof.

On numbers 1-10Yes, a more realistic example would use number 1-100000. I agree. I used 1-10 because I was trying to make a point about someone picking numbers in between looking for the "missing link".I did not mean to imply that there are 10 forms in the fossil record and I'm pretty sure that everyone understood that.On Creationist who look for 1.5Look at the arguements surrounding Archaeopteryx. It's a perfect example of a "5". Here's an animal that would (and in fact was) classified as a lizard, until someone found a fossil of it with feathers. Only birds have feathers and birds don't have teeth. That puts this fossil right in the middle between the lizards with teeth and the birds with feathers.Creationists repond with "Well, those feathers are well defined. Where's one with more primative feathers?" In other words, "Where's #3?"Others say, "That's just a lizard with feathers. It's not a bird. Show me one that's more bird like than Archaeopteryx." AKA "Where's #7?"As for proof that people are saying it: Check trueorigin.org as an example. They put in a great deal of effort muddying the waters by trying to say that if it has feathers it's a bird, even if it looks like a lizard.Clearly you can not win with these people.Creationist: "Show me a transitional species"
Biologist: "Archaeopteryx"
Creationist: "That one doesn't count."
Biologist: "Why not? It's clearly transitional. It has features of both lizards and birds. If this doesn't fit the criteria, what does?"
Creationist: "Umm... Ahhh..... I'm not a monkey! Nah nah nah I'm not listening!"
Biologist: "Great, and we're supposed to have a debate with this guy"

First off, I assume the "and" was supposed to be an "an" in this quote:"The bottom line is no evos here are putting forth, based on science, and estimate of the numbers of fossilized transitionals we should expect to find."That's a really broad call on your part. "Estimated number of fossilized transitionals" of what species?You seem to be saying this: "Given a period of say 500 million years and the unknowable number of species and individual members of those species that existed during that time, and the very haphazard circumstances that lead to fossilization, someone tell me how many transitionals we should find in the fossil record. And if you can't tell me how many we should find in the fossil record, then ToE must be wrong."That's crazy!Let's turn this on it's head.You are obviously anti-ToE, so I assume you are either ID or C, (both the same thing really). If ID is correct, then there shouldn't be any transitional forms at all. Why would the Great Designer need baby steps? Just make it right the first time.Second note:"...you have no viable theory as to why the forms they supposedly evolved from and evolved to are extremely well-represented in the fossil record..."Australopithecus africanus is not "well-represented". We have, I would guess, less than 100 fossils from less than 30 individuals.The reason we don't have well represented "transitional forms" is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post.As soon as we have a "transitional form" which is "well represented", you anti-science people say, "That's not transitional, that's the form it changed into. Show me one between these two."You want transition? Look at horse leg evolution at:
Page not found – Evolution-FactsThough I'm sure you'll look at that excellent series of 8 images and say "Where's the one between number 4 and 5".I'd love to have you on a jury if I was being tried for a crime."Well, we can prove he had a gun, that he pointed it at the victom and that he pulled the trigger. We can show that the gun went off and that the bullet hit the victom, causing his death.""Okay, but do you have a picture of the bullet in flight?""In fact, we do.""This bullet is in mid-air. Do you have one coming out of the gun?"Ridiculous

Quote: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.Okay, gotta start using punctuation, Evopeach. Had to read this 3x and I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying.I'm either about to make your point, or disprove it, depending on what the heck you are trying to say.You are asking the wrong question. You are asking, "Do all devices with threads have a similiar purpose?" That's over generalization.The proper question is this: "Do the threads on different devices server a similiar purpose, namely to tighten through rotation?"I would suggest yes, though given the thousands and thousands of threaded devices, I'm sure you'll find one or two that don't fit that purpose.I've gone back over a number of your posts and you're making a lot of the same arguments I see from many Creationists and Intelligent Design guys (is there really a difference?).You seem hooked on "lack of transitional forms".I think this sums up your arguement -- Species A is an ancestor of Species B. Both Species A and Species B have wide ranging habitats and enjoy high population density. You're looking at lots of examples of A and lots of examples of B, but no forms in between.Now, people on the list have posted links to various series of transitional forms. There are a number of fish transitionals, the whale transition is well documented, and the Dino-Bird transitional fossils coming out of China are stunningly self evident.But, you say, that's only a few of them. Where are all the others?This is just a misunderstanding (lack of understanding) of the basic mechanics of evolution.When a species (Species A) is spread over a wide range, it's very hard for a single mutation to be reproduced throughout the population as a whole. Unless the mutation is radically more advantageous, the law of averages works against it's spread.However, animal populations generally don't work that way.Frequently clusters of animals get isolated from the whole, whether on an island, in a canyon, cut off by a glacier, etc., etc.When a mutation occurs in an isolated group, the lower population numbers help insure that the change spreads through out the whole group.Additionally, isolated groups tend to have hardships not faced by their original founding population. Limited resources, highly specific resources, highly selective predation, repeated exposure to climate problems, etc. So, mutations which might be of only minor advantage to the greater population, may be a huge advantage to an isolated population.Given these factors and time, it's easy to see how this group could go through a whole series of changes, becoming Species B.Now, while these changes are happening to the isolated group, the larger population of Species A as a whole hasn't changed much if at all.Eventually, whatever has created the isolation will be breached, the founding population will face competition from Species B. If the changes have provided the new group with a great advantage, they can quickly (geologically speaking) replace species A.IF (big IF) the isolated area where this change took place happened to be a good place to create fossils, AND (big AND) people happen to have discovered those fossils - then yes, we will find a whole series of transitional forms (see the list above).However, the odds are that we're looking someplace other than the specific location where this group was isolated. In which case, over 99.99 percent of the world, we'd see Species A in the fossil record, then with almost no overlap whatsoever Species B would replace it.Hopefully that clears things up for you

PUNCTUATION!!!Quote: "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."Do you mean that the idea is unique to me? That it's uniquely human?Quote: "Second if a small population means breeding between closly related relatives I think we know how advanced those results are advantageous and all that."Clearly you are just being pithy here. I assume you understand that four of five hundred squirrels living at the bottom of the Grand Canyon represent a smaller breeding population than the say, nine hundred million squirrels, in the rest of the world.However, five hundred squirrels being a smaller population does not equate to Russian royalty type inbreeding.Quote: "...the big picture crowd being exposed to a varied and dynamic environment...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."Two points of misunderstanding here on your part.
1) While the larger group would be exposed to more different types of pressures, any one given pressure would have less of an effect on them. So, for example, if there were irregular droughts in one area, a species which existed both in and out of the drought areas wouldn't have the same amount of selection applied to them as a group which could only interbreed with members who were within the drought area. As a result, the larger the breeding pool, the less likely one particular trait is going to spread through out it.2) While it is possible, perhaps even likely, that an isolated group might not evolve into a better competitor, that was not the point of the scenario. I radically over simplified the situation so you could more easily understand it.In reality, Species A would probably have dozens of isolated breeding pools, any one of which could spawn Species B, while Species A1-A11 are dead ends. However, the question was why don't we find examples of A1-A12, which the scenario explains quite clearly.Quote: "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"This makes no sense. According to this, we can not differentiate between any two extinct species because technically we can't tell if a T-Rex could hump a Wooly Mammoth.Yes, the ability to interbreed is a way of differentiating species, but not the only way.Further, two species do not need to exist in the same place at the same time for use to determine if they were different species. 14000 years ago, there were wild horses in North America. They died out (turns out horses are easy to hunt compaired to stuff that fights back). However, there are wild horses currently living in America, brought originally by the Spanish. Were the horses of the megafaunal era the same ones that the Spanish showed up with in 1492. Doubt it.Quote: "...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."First off, we DO have records of the isolated groups and their changes. Several in fact, but it was YOUR question "Why don't we have more".Either you don't have an understanding of fossilization, or you are turning a blind eye.There is an excellent post above - Percy's #111. It goes into several, but certainly not all, of the scenarios in which a species could die out and we don't have a fossil record for them.Seems to me you are picking a lot of nits with people trying to explain this process to you. This is a popular tactic of Creationists. But, when asked to explain their position, the best they can up with is, "Uh, someone musta come and dun it."Well, what's the point in lightning rods? Clearly lighting is completely unexplainable through science. Must be the Intelligent Lightning Thrower.I wonder, do Creationists take medicine? Do they use computers? Lightbulbs?

Transitional examples-Arbitrary start point:
Australopithicus AfricanusTransitionals:
Homo Habalis
Homo Erectus
Cro-MagnonArbitrary stop point:
Homo SapiensI just gave you three examples of transitional forms. Satisfied?

If you're talking about a WWII battle, I agree. But, if you are talking about Sampson killing thousands with the jaw-bone of an ass, I doubt you're going to find as much evidence. Partially because there aren't tanks lying around from that battle, and because so much time has past. Here's what I posted in a different thread, it answers your question quite clearly You keep bringing this up on threads, so I went and looked some stuff up.Page not found – Research Casting InternationalHere's a link to fossils, and I agree, as a layman it doesn't look much like a whale. What's worse, this "artists rendition" looks even less whale-likeImage - Wikipediaakicetus.jpgHowever, I haven't seen any sites saying that this animal "IS" a whale. Wikipedia, where I got the most damning image says this: However, anyone stumbling across a Hyrax --File:Hyrax.jpg - Wikipedia--wouldn't think it was a relative of the elephant.Fortunately, these decisions aren't left to laymen. They are left to people who devote decades of their lives to studying things like elephant teeth or horse stomaches.If the Pakicetus has a skull feature which is only found in it, it's descendants and whales, well, then I'd say it's descendants went on to become whales.But you still haven't answered the questions raised here and elsewhere.You like to point to evidence which you say defeats evolution, but where's your evidence that supports your theory. Is there any at all?

In 1893, Darwin travelled on the HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands among other places. While there, he noticed that the finches on the different islands had subtle differences, adaptations to their particular environment. Darwin reasoned that, since the islands were so far from the mainland, it was likely that the different populations of finches had decended from only a few finches blown there by a storm rather than several groups of finches, each blown to a different island.But, how did the finches "change" to fit their island?It is from these observations that Darwin began his theory.Once headed down this train of thought, the fossil record, though incomplete (especially in Darwin's day) helped reinforce the theory.If the finches had changed from one kind of finch to another, couldn't other animals have changed as well? The amount of time the finches had been on the Galapagos is small compaired to the millions of years seperating species of today from the ones we see in the fossil record.As a side note, Darwin wasn't the only one working on the theory at the time. Alfred Wallace had the same idea based on his work with beetles. Had Darwin not published, we'd be having a similiar conversation about the beetles of Borneo.Clearly, it was an idea who's time had come -- it's a concept known in science as a paradigmatic shiftHope that answers your questions Herepton

Welcome to the boards, I see you are coming out of the box strong. Good for you.I hope my earlier post about Darwin answered your questions, since you didn't reply to it, but instead to the others.I see from this current post that you've made a few logical mistakes that we've seen here before.First, you've asserted that Darwin had "no evidence for his theory" and implied that this somehow negates the theory.Obviously, as was seen in my post, there was a great deal of evidence both in and out of the fossil record for Darwin's theory. But, let's assume for the sake of argument that Darwin simply had come up with this theory in an empty room without looking at any evidence. Would that, in and of itself, mean the theory is incorrect? No. Theoretical physicists are frequently coming up with theories which prove mathematically possible, but for which we lack the technology to even test. Are these theories therefore "false"? No. That judgement is left up to the evidence.Second, you're using the term species, but without giving us an understanding of what you mean by the word. Some people take species to mean "two animals which can not interbreed to produce viable offspring" others use species in terms of the classification system, still others use species in a much broader term (ie refering to all the different jumping spiders as a single species).It's easy to mix these terms up. For example, you imply in your post that two different species can not interbreed. If, by your definition of species, you mean two animals which can not interbreed, then your statement is merely a reiteration of your definition.However, what the statement seems to imply is that you believe this to be true in the sense of species within the classification system. This, however, is not correct. Asian jungle cats, for example, are a different "species" by classification than the common house cat. However, these two species can interbreed successfully. I'll be happy to give you a link to photos of some very pretty 1/2 breeds, 1/4 breeds, 1/8 breeds.It's easy to mix up the terms when making arguments, so it often helps to be very specific with what you are saying.Third, you've got this quote in there: This boggles me. What evidence are you refering to specifically and how does it support sudden creation?Additionally, it may help if you explain which version of Creationism you are arguing for? Christian Young Earth (Flood) Creationism? Christian Old Earth Creationism? Babylonian Creationism? Aztec? Norse? We need to understand which belief system you are saying the facts support before we can understand how they support it.Next point, on your reply to this quote: I think you've misunderstood the original posters point. I took it to mean that evolution as a theory would still hold up even if there were no fossils anywhere in the world.As it stands, there happen to be quite a few, and they overwhelmingly agree with the theory of evolution. But, if you disagree with this, I'd be happy to hear your point of view (see notes above to get said point across).Finally, in regards to you final point (which is also reflected in your previous post) -The Theory of Evolution simply states what is happening in the natural world. There are people who support ToE, but do not support abiogenesis. In other words, there is not a conflict between the belief system that God set the ball in motion and the Theory of Evolution. In fact, this is the position of the Catholic Church.It is true that many (I'll even go so far as to say most) supporters of the ToE do believe in abiogenesis. However, I would doubt that they themselves would try and argue "scientifically" against you if you suggested that God was the one who hit the primordial ooze with the spark that brought about life.Hope that clears some stuff up, look forward to seeing more posts from you. You seem very articulate

I don't know that this would prove anything. After all, the layman has a phone in his house and sees a phone in his friends house. He can see "telephone poles" (clearly misnamed) and "telephone lines" (just as misleading).But no one has been able to show that there is anything specifically connecting any one phone to any other phone.Sure, you can show they are all tied into some strange "network" of phone lines, but to use that to prove that any phone is connected to any other is just ridiculous.Clearly, the evidence supports only one theory.There was this really big snowstorm in the not to distant past. When the flakes fell, so did the telephones. Simple as that.Prove me wrong.By the way, I discount any so called "evidence" you might present out of hand.

You've lost me. Are you saying that I should say that I disagree with your post, or that you should have said that you disagreed with the original post?My assertion was that your quote: "no evidence for his theory" was misguided.If you truely believe there is "no evidence", let's discuss that. Are you asking if the 1/2 breed cats are sterile, or the 1/4, or the 1/8, or the 1/16? By the way, the answer is in the question.I remember a joke: "Sterility runs in my family".My point was this, your textbook definition of species may not be completely useful to the debate. While it is true that many closely related species can mate and produce sterile hybrids (Ligers, Mules, etc). Sterility is not in and of itself a full marker of the ability to produce viable offspring.For example, two members of the same species may not be able to mate with each other for purely mechanical reasons. A weiner dog male would have a hard time hitting the target on a great dane female, and a weiner dog female may not be able to carry a great dane litter full term. However, if you could produce these pups they would be viable.Or, in the case of jumping spiders, two types of spiders could have different mating dances, and therefore never be able to come to terms in the mating process even though they are genetically capable of producing offspring which would not be sterile (but may also be unable to complete a mating dance for the same reasons).So the line between each "species" by the strict mating definition isn't quite as clear as one might like to believe. Exactly what is my assumption here? That random mutation exists? Are you suggesting that there is no mutation? Or that no mutation is "random".If "No Mutation", how do you explain birth defects, genetic disorders, red heads, blue eyes, tall people, short people, little people, etc.If "No Random", was it the parents of a Down Syndrome child that brought about this punishment, or was it something the child did in the womb? As I understood it, your original post went under the assumption that either there were no genetic changes (microevolution) or that the changes never added up to what we would consider a new species (macroevolution).If that's the case, there are a number of strings of fossils we can point you to which demonstrate this concept nicely. Fish fossils, whale fossils, horse leg evolution, etc.

And, if you want to drop the "random" from random mutation, you can check with Pfizer parm. I, personally, created at least 7 valuable "new forms" of bacteria while working there.

Is it your hypothesis that fish A will exist, it will be suddenly wiped out, then fish B, which looks almost identical to fish A, but has a larger dorsal fin, will suddenly leap into existance?I assume you are familiar with wasps, bees and ants.Microevolution tells us that small changes can happen within a species. Okay, let's work with that.There is a species known as "velvet ants". They look just like normal ants, except that they are covered with fine "hairs" (not really "hair" but let's not complicate things). Microevolution says that you could lose the hair and still have the same species, right?Well, velvet ants are actually wasps. Microevolution accounts for the loss of the wings.But, if microevolution can account for the loss of the wings and for the loss of the hair, why don't these steps make the difference between wasps and ants?Given the vast numbers of different kinds of ants and wasps, I would guess that these two groups have more in common with each other than they have seperating them.Did each group of wasps seperately spontaneously pop into existance? Same with ants?When was the last time we saw a new whale species pop into existance? How about a new kind of elephant? Couple of points here:
1) "their official doctrine has remained unchanged" - Maybe I don't understand the Catholic Church, but I thought their official doctrine was laid down by the Pope. If that's true, their official doctrine is evolution, as of October 23, 1996.2) "that chief doctrine being anyone who is not a Catholic is going to hell". Hate to break it to ya, but the fundamentalists/born agains have the exact same doctorine. Kind of makes you wonder if any of them are right.3) "They placate you Darwinists" -- well, I really don't think the Catholics are spending much time "placating" the Darwinists. I would be extremely surprised to find out that any decision the church is making is based on "what do the Darwin people think about this?" You seem to think that "literally hundreds were missing" implies that there is no evidence.Have you ever put together a jigsaw puzzle? The big ones may have 5000 pieces. At some point, you have 3500 or so pieces in place, with 1500 scattered across the table. If I came in and stole the 1500 pieces, you would have "literally hundreds missing". However, if I asked someone who had never seen the box the puzzle pieces came in, what the puzzle was a picture of, they'd be able to say, "Looks like a bunch of puppies".The fact that 1500 pieces are missing does not invalidate the fact that there is a puzzle. It doesn't invalidate the fact that it's a picture of puppies. It doesn't invalidate the fact that a person can look at the pieces which are there and say that it's puppies.Sure, we may have 1 of the 3500 pieces in the wrong place. We may even have a group of 5-6 pieces stuck together which we think are a paw but turn out to be an ear.This is what Leakey is talking about.

Sounds like your theory is that because so many different scientific disciplines all arrive at the same conclusions based on different data, therefore they much be wrong.I don't really understand the logic in that theory.

--and now a short play--RE: Chiroptera's long postSite all the facts you want, spell out all the logical steps in basic 6th grade English, list all the books and scientific studies.The fact remains that this one book over here proves conclusively that Evolution didn't happen.By "proves conclusively" I mean, "states".And by "one book" I mean, "the verison I choose to believe, since all other versions are in the hands of heretics".Oh, and by "didn't happen" I mean, "my basic understanding of even my own religion is so minimal that I can't imagine how it could possibly have any influence or value without it being literally true."So there! I'm right, you're wrong! I'm not a monkey! Pakithus is not a whale!