Where are all the missing links?

Nonsense, it requires fully-formed organs. How could an organism survive to breed if its organs were not fully-formed?Evolution requires organisms with fully-formed organs that change through generations; we do indeed find hints of that in the fossil record (organs don't often fossilize.) Because the fossil record is chock-a-block with transitional forms. Each transitional form is a fully-formed organism, of course. In fact, the geologic column is found at almost every place on Earth, because almost every place on Earth is subject to depostition. In fact, it has been revised and improved with data from radiometric dating. Kent Hovind says a lot of things that aren't true, and that he can't substantiate. My favorite Hovind lie is that he's going to give money to anyone that can prove evolution. What a whopper!

Well, that doesn't make any sense. You can't be between species. Everything belongs to a species. There are indeed fossils of transitional forms, plenty of them, but each fossil is a fossil of a species.And only a dozen? Wherever did you get that idea? Well, it's hard to find, I know - that information being, after all, concealed in these things called "books", which are all locked up under armed guard at library-fortresses. I mean, they must be, right? Why else wouldn't you be reading them?Then again we have this thing called (I forget exactly) the "interweb", or something. If you can figure out how to go to this webpage - I never can - you can look at a sampling of the transitional species we know from the fossil record. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQI did say "from the fossil record", so this is a list, largely, of vertebrate transitionals. That's an unfortunate condition of the fact that invertebrates, lacking for the large part bones, don't readily fossilize. Flowers don't have bones either. I find it very, very interesting that you've chosen to fixate on the lack of fossils of organisms that you must have figured out aren't likely to fossilize. Well, anyone except for those who have undergone tonsilectomies or appendectomies. I guess all those people died immediately from the lack of the oh-so-crucial appendix or tonsils?Indeed, those organs are vestigal. Note please that "vestigal" is not equal to "entirely without function."

Let's try a different tack. Exactly which species do you propose are not transitional forms?

This portion of the dialog in this thread is starting to drift off topic. Please, no replies.I contend that you do not understand the meaning behind what you are saying, that you're merely aping language (and the arguments of creationists) as a result of operant conditioning.You'll have to prove to us that you're actually a conscious entity if apparently, it doesn't take consciousness to use language. You'll have to prove that you have consciousness, first. Oh, and define it, while you're at it.This message has been edited by Admin, 08-16-2005 11:15 AM

Well, you never did answer my question. What species exist, dead or alive, that you believe are not transitional forms?

This post is off topic. Please, no replies.I'm sorry? I don't understand how any of that is a response to any of my posts, or indeed how the above slanderous, demeaning remarks are in the least appropriate. Lincoln was admitted to his state's Bar like all lawyers. Relevance?This message has been edited by Admin, 08-16-2005 07:09 PM

Luckily we've dug up a few fossils since his day. Here's an in-depth look at intermediate species between major vertebrate groups: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThe creationist claim that there are "no transitional fossils" is common, but a lie.

The scant fossil evidence avaliable in 1860. That was over a century ago. What do you think that paleontologists have been doing since then? Well, then I guess Leakey was wrong, wasn't he?I'm going to guess that, since you posted less than a minute after me and I just linked you to several pages of in-depth scientific evidence, that you didn't actually visit the link and read any of it.Why would you believe that that's an acceptable basis for debate? What conclusions about your honesty and maturity level should I come to if you ask for evidence, practically beg for it, and then do not examine it when it is given to you?

What? Huh?Where did I say that I didn't believe you? I'm sure Darwin said just what you said he said. I didn't assert it, I proved it. Of course, now that I read closer, Leakey didn't say what you said he did. He simply asserted that the history of some species are poorly represented in the fossil record.That's a true statement. Can you explain to me how, from Leakey's true statement, you got what you said, which was:

quote:

---

Also, the Leakey quote says the very evidence which justifies the existence of your theory remained entirely missing as late as 1967.

---

"Entirely missing"? Can you show me where Leakey said that? Among other things - Louis Leakey's own discoveries at such fossil sites as Olduvai Gorge. What's the relevance of the "time frame referenced"?

So, you didn't read my link, either?What on Earth is Cantius if not a transitional primate? Tribosphenomys minutus? Anthracotherium? I'm supposed to look at these obviously transitional fossils, and then conclude what? That they don't actually exist because you say that they don't?I simply don't understand your argument, Randman. It certainly doesn't appear to address the evidence that I have presented or the conclusions from it. can you help me understand how what you've posted is in any way a refutation of the transitional forms I've presented?

How many transitionals were present in the link that I gave? Well, in my opinion, there are. How many transitionals do you think there should be?

Observation. Specifically, observations of island life made during his travels aboard the HMS Beagle. Yes, it did. Hundreds are missing. How do you go from that to what you said? How do you go from "hundreds of missing links" to "massively missing?" Did you read the pages I posted with the transitional links we have? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but like all scientific theories, evolution's foundation is the evidence of observation and experiment, and its confirmation is the vast preponderance of useful work accomplished as a direct result of its explanitory power.

You've committed more of the logical mistakes that you claim weren't present in your post, for instance: See if you can spot 'em. Are all species animals? No, of course not. And the majority of the Earth's biomass (in the form of single-cell organisms) don't mate. They're asexual.Right out of the gate you've improperly understood the species concept, which is a reproductive community. Another way to say that is that a species is a population between whose members there is significant gene flow.Simple in concept, of course, but when put into practice its the source of sigificant controversy among biologists. The determination of species boundaries is an art as much as it is a science and the techniques and criteria change depending on whether we're talking about extant populations or extinct ones. An assumption? Another logical error. Random genetic mutation is an observation, not an assumption. I can relate and explain the bacterial experiments that allow us to make these observations, if you wish.

I'm sorry, but why would the fossil record need to support speciation? That's a process we've consistently and constantly observed both in the lab and in the wild.Why would we need fossils to prove something we can observe with our own eyes?

For one thing, because these organisms constitute the vast majority of both the Earth's species and the Earth's biomass, and because both the theory of evolution and the definition of species apply to these organisms. I think the better question is why you tried to constrain your remarks to the small, small portion of species and biomass represented by sexual animals. Successful, sustained breeding? No, by definition. Isolated, artifical instances of hybridization? Yes. Please note that the definition of species draws the line at "significant gene flow", not "no gene flow."