What IS the missing link? If evolution is fact, then show me proof.?

Question

Prove to me that evolution isn't merely another religion.
Prove to me that evolution (man from amoebas, life from rocks) is in the slightest way scientific.
Prove to me that inner species adaptation is the same thing as mammals evolving from reptiles.
Show me ONE example of ANY living creature EVER reproducing a DIFFERENT creature. (Any "dog" reproducing anything other than another "dog")
Evolution is NOT scientific. Adaptation certainly is, but adaptation is NOT evolution. Evolution is a RELIGION.

Good luck. (how's that for backing down from a debate?)

Spooky: Then where did dogs come from? Did a dog climb out of the primordial ooze? Something that wasn't a dog MUST have given birth to a dog at some point. If not, then dogs have always existed, or at least since God created them on day 6.

Still no one has offered PROOF.

byde: all you have is adaptations within a species, not evolution.

chemi: we're discussing the origin of life, not the adaptation of technology. Has any spotted moth ever produced anything that wasn't a moth? Adaptation is NOT sufficent evidence to say that all life evolved from a single cell. Where did THAT cell come from? A rock?

MC Hummer: WHAT evidence?! WHAT facts?! You haven't given ANY.

psychology: That's exactly my point. You can't tell me that I can't prove mine so mine is religion, then you can't prove yours, but yours is somehow science? Where DID the universe come from? You don't KNOW! You can only BELIEVE. Religion.

Jack: Glad you recognized Hovind. ;) Still even though you claim it takes millions of years, shouldn't it still be happening? Shouldn't we routinely see some animal die off and it's offspring be something else (other than a better version of it's parent)?

Answer 1

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.

You don't really want proof. You want to start an argument. Still, there may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field:

The progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA
First multicellular animals 670 MYA
Shell-bearing animals 540 MYA
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA
Amphibians 350 MYA
Reptiles 310 MYA
Mammals 200 MYA
Nonhuman primates 60 MYA
Earliest apes 25 MYA
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA
One can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.

Structural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all.

The distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.

Similarities During Development
Embryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, for instance, are sedentary crustaceans with little apparent similarity to such other
crustaceans as lobsters, shrimps, or copepods. Yet barnacles pass through a free-swimming larval stage in which they look like other crustacean larvae. The similarity of larval stages supports the conclusion that all crustaceans have homologous parts and a common ancestry.
Similarly, a wide variety of organisms from fruit flies to worms to mice to humans have very similar sequences of genes that are active early in development. These genes influence body segmentation or orientation in all these diverse groups. The presence of such similar genes doing similar things across such a wide range of organisms is best explained by their having been present in a very early common ancestor of all of these groups.
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

Transitional fossils. Despite creationist claims that there are no transitional fossils, they do indeed exist, and there are many of them, across a wide range of species. Humans, horses, whales, and birds, just to name a few. There are transitional fossils showing the evolution of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, and reptile to mammal. There are even transitional species that are still alive today. The lungfish, for example.

Genetic variation.
Evolution would require genetic variation to happen, and a considerable amount of genetic diversity exists even among members of the same species, identical twins notwithstanding.

Microevolution.
Creationists once claimed that after God created everything, animals stopped changing. This has been so thoroughly debunked that even the most hardcore creationists accept that microevolutionary changes occur. The problem for creationists is that microevolution happens within a time fram that is even less then the blink of an eye in a gelogical scale. It is not unreasonable to infer that over hundreds of millions of years, conditions could lead to a population of animals evolving into something very different from the parent generation. Creationists are always asking evolutionists to show them an example of this, but they demand an example within a time scale that simply isn't reasonable. Not that creationists have ever been reasonable about debating these things.

Just one of any of these evidences I've cited could not be considered evidence, much less proof. But the totality of it all, when brought together, requires an explanation, and common descent explains it best, which is why 99% of the 400,000 scientists in all related fields accept evoltuion as the best theory. And these scientists range from all branches of religion. While some are atheists, many are christians from all denominations. Some are buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. It simply doesn't hold water to accuse the entire scientific community of a great conspiracy. Especially when you consider that evolution had been postualted 100 years or more before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" by a small group of scientists that were also members of the christian church who felt it was their Heavenly duty to discover how God governed His creations. Scientists still vigorously debate the mechanisms of evolution (how it occurs), but they are pretty much unanimous that all species share a common ancestor with other species.

Rather than come up with evidence of their own, creationists spend all of their time poo-pooing the evidence for evolution. The problem is that criticisms of evolution, regardless of how valid they are, are NOT evidence for literal creation. Doubless, this thread will soon be riddled with posts that claim this or that, in support of literal creation, in response to what I've written. before doing so, the writer should visit this site; http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp. It outlines several arguments that creationists should NOT use. Written by creationists, for creationists. Then, if your argument, whatever it is, isn't mentioned there, visit http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments. These sites counter each and every argument I have ever heard from creationists. If you have something new, I'd love to hear about it.

Last, let me add that in a way, I am a creationist. I am a christian who believes that God created us through evolution. Believe as you wish, but please don't confuse me with atheists.

Answer 2

Watch the people back down from a good challenge. Oh yes, I'm putting this on my watch list, just in case I gotta point out someone's errors.

cornfunkel: Put down your biology textbook (which teaches the fraudalent embryonic recapitulation theory, which says that embryos "trace" evolutionary ancestry, the books use Haeckel's proven fraudalent drawings [proven by photographs of embryos] and outdated false evidence) and pick up your Bible and look at the truth.

John: The moth photograph in the textbook is also false, did you know it was actually some dead moths glued to trees? Those are arguments you evolutionists should not use, because they really discredit your case. However, consult JG's answer about the genetic code thingyadoo.

spookykid313: Lucy is actually considered a full human. Try again.

Well... looks like nobody can really provide any real answers.

Answer 3

Looks like people can't answer. Imma puttin' this on 'Watch list'

To John:
Ah, london peppered moths, eh? The peppered moths did not evolve. They already had the genetic code for being either white or black. The species did not change. Oh, and after the industial revolution, with the trees being cleaned from the black smog, they turned right back to the original ratio of colors.

To spookykid313:
Lucy was found with some parts of her 50 miles away! And, if I'm not mistaken, within 2 weeks of the funding for finding her being pulled! Wow, how'd that happen? She's also considered to be as human as a person with a back problem.

To everyone else:
The "Fact" that it's in text books as a "scientific theory" does not make it fact. It's not even testable through the scientific process of observation and experimentation! It's merely a makebelieve story. Instead of "long long ago" its "millions and millions of years ago".

Oh, I think we should tell people about the difference between "Micro-evolution" (same species, loss of DNA information) and "Macro-evolution" (Darwinism 'n all that).

To elchistoso69:
Humans have tail bones so they can.... poo. Go ahead, if you really think it's vestigial, have them removed, lol.

The "fossil records" never show up together. Different layers can be made with a flash flood. Text books say fossil dating is based on which layers they're in, but also tell you the layers are dated by which fossil is in there; circular reasoning.

Isotopic Dating (or radiometric dating) is not good for millions of years and requires four assumptions: the rate of decay never changes, the amount of original radioactive material is known, no radioactive material or their product was ever removed, nor were any added. You can't really assume those and be "accurate".

Whales have pelvises so they can give birth.

Common structures show similarities in function (like birds with their wings and bats with their wings). Not necessarily ancestral relationship.

My explanation for why some similarities? We share the same proteins for a reason, we have to be able to use those proteins/sugars/fats that other plants and animals make in order to power our own bodies. It's by design.

Distribution of species? Loss of DNA due to adaptation. Micro-evolution does not prove (or even come near) to proving macro evolution.

Embryology? Picture evidence has shown that we don't develop in "Stages" from fish to reptile to mammal. We have a human structure within a week!

Creationists do have evidence. Largely, they are removed or ignored my the Museum of Natural history. This country has a history of favoring Naturalistic views.

Lastly, I don't believe God would use evolution to create us. Why would he want to take up millions of years? Why would he use death and "Survival of the fittest"? Why would he lie to the Jews when he said he created the world in 6 days? Would Jesus be a liar in saying that with Adam was the beginning?

Oh, and about that website you gave us as an answer to Creationists? All written by one guy, Mark Isaak. Here's a response to him that I've found:
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

Answer 4

What you people fail to comprehend is the genetic changes that occur over the course of time. It can take hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years to create an effect. Now go back to church and stick your head in the sand...it is safer.

Below, I have included a link to a discussion about the London Peppered Moths. It is fascinating, and has debate both FOR and AGAINST the hypothesis that a moth evolved it's color scheme over a short period of time. Read it...who knows, maybe you will learn something new!

SOGA: I was wondering, did Neil Armstrong really set foot on the moon?? To me it seems like a conspiracy!! Hint: this is sarcasm.

Answer 5

it is important to take note that any notable scientist should be able to tell you that evolution is NOT fact. it IS a theory. the theory of evolution. science tries to draw conclusions from things that can be studied or from experiments that can be conducted. ALL current scientific evidence points to evolution-i wont bore you with all that information here as it is already well catalogued and discussed in literature as well as down below on this page by the likes of JG, byderule, elchistoso and others.

i believe there is a good chance that the theory of evolution will be completely overturned or at least greatly overhauled someday, but on this day, using ALL of the empirical evidence that we have-the THEORY of evolution is the model that best describes how we came to be.

if we believe that either some god or aliens put us here, then let us go and gather that empirical evidence. what we find is that there is NONE. we cannot do any experiments and we can not find a SINGLE shred of evidence for any of these theories. the only support we have for them are what people SAY happened. that is called philosophy or religion or something else, but not science. if it is science, then we need to be able to find real evidence of it.

although i believe that there is more to our existence than just random evolution, that is only my belief, i do not have ANY empirical data to support it. NONE. so it is my faith, not any science.

you ask that someone PROVE evolution to you. there is no proof. if or when the THEORY of evolution has data that can provide a PROOF, it will then become the LAW of evolution. some people say that we should not say that evolution should be taught or discussed if it is not provable. that is ridiculous, the way to scientific discovery is to have hypotheses and theories that over time, as our understanding grows, become laws, or perhaps become discarded as we learn that our old THEORIES turned out to not be true. if anyone here or anywhere can PROVE evolution to you or to anyone else, well, they would most likely win a nobel prize and join the likes of darwin, mendel, and others in scientific history. this may happen, maybe it will happen here in yahoo answers, maybe it will happen next year, or in 200 years, or maybe never.

to use an analogy, if you found what looked like mouse droppings in your house every day, and there were holes torn in the packages of food in your pantry every day, and your heard small squeaking noises inside your walls, you might theorize that you had mice living in your house. you could argue that until you actually saw the mice, we could not say that there were mice living in the house. you would be right, until we had actual proof that there were mice (either by seeing them or catching them), we could not say definitively that there were mice living in the house. over time, we could surely find the mice and then we would have our proof that there were mice in the house. but there are lots of other possibilities that may modify our THEORY that there are mice. we might find that they were not mice, that they were some other small animal. or maybe something would need make us turn our theory on its head, like someone was intentionally placing mice droppings in your house, tearing holes in your food packages, and had installed small speakers to make mouse like noises. until we found the truth, we would be negligent to just say "well we dont know for sure if we have mice, so we wont do anything".

Answer 6

there is no missing link that is propaganda.

Anunakis did many genetic experiments ,as well as cloning ,more than 300.000 years ago

and they were probably not the only ones.

all of these humanoids,cromagnon,neanderthal-er ,erect us Sapian ,what ever ,lived at the same time.not in progression
over millions of years .as was first believed.

but living creatures do evolve to keep up with climatic changes and development of predators.

insects evolve very fast ,and so do trees and plants

animals can take millions of years,

Humans were mostly bred to become different

and don't speak to loudly against reptiles ,the oldest part of your brain is a reptile left over ,but not from an Earthly one ,it comes from the Anunaki

and don't forget your appendix ,also a left over from another type of diet in the past

and if you dig even deeper inside every cell in the human body is a bit that doesn't belong there ,it is not human ,but we all got it
,apparently dormant

and a lung fish is a nice example of evolving
it walks on its flippers ,got both gills and lungs

so that it can get out of pools that dry up to get into the water again

Eucaliptus trees that are atacked by caterpillers ,send messages to other trees often hundreds of kilometers away,by means of feramones that are carried by the wind

the other Eucaliptus trees evolve to produce poison that kills these particular caterpillers by the time the caterpillars reach them,

also a kind of evolving

Answer 7

The missing link is a semi-aquatic ape. If scientists were to look where the ancient seashores were, they would find proof of this creature. The hominin tree has many branches extending from our origins of African apes. Some of the 'missing link' answers came from the discovery of Lucy:

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html

Read "The Naked Ape". There is an entire chapter devoted to this subject.

A dog won't produce anything other than a dog. But evolution says that it will produce a dog that is better adapted to survival than it's predecessors. The proof of our origins is irrefutable.

Answer 8

I think u r very poorly educated on that one and you r not even aware where the faultlines of evolutionism actually lie. You need considerable amount of reading before you can be even considered worthy for a debate... since evolution is a scientific theory and not mere gibberish on which you can have a lay opinion... how about some basic Wikipedia search to begin with.... But looking at your face i have serious doubts if you can be helped!

Answer 9

It's so easy to demand a difficult proof. For example, prove that every even number greater than 2 can be represented as the sum of two prime numbers.

Personally, I don't blindly believe evolution. I just see evolution as the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation yet put forth for the origin of species.

Answer 10

How many wisdom tooth's did you have. Do you know they are disappearing. This is evolution in action. Evolution is not a religion is a theory based on the science. The truth of today maybe false tomorrow. Evolution of ideas is also evolution. Remember the cellulars phones or computers 10 and 15 years ago, is this is not evolution tell me what it is.

Answer 11

There is no proof, there is no missing link, there is no evolution. The whole basis of evolution is evolving which means what ever existed in the past is now extinct. Well we still have apes and monkeys,(which ever they believe we evolved from), and here also is man kind. Everything living on this planet is going to have similarities because we have to coexist with the planet.