I think the fossil record of so called "common ancestors" in evolutionary theory are simply fossils of extinct species and thats all.
2006-11-26 05:22:13 · 20 answers · asked by curious_inquisitor 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Michael - No, If they can find dinosaur fossils they should be able to find the missing links.
2006-11-26 07:09:13 · update #1
Robotron5 - Why don't you try answering the question.
2006-11-26 07:12:02 · update #2
andymcj66 - They are simply finding fossils of exstinct species in many cases.
2006-11-26 07:15:18 · update #3
brookston - No, they are not finding similar religious things that predate those are they? But they are finding fossils that are much older than the so called missing link which does not exist.
2006-11-26 07:20:14 · update #4
Heinz - Give me a break. I know that. And you know my question alludes or implies that.
2006-11-26 07:27:19 · update #5
er - Thats your problem, you think your finding missing links, and your not.
2006-11-26 07:30:33 · update #6
Did you think about how hard it is, just to find the fossils we have today?But, also of the thousands of bones in storage and the manpower to actually study them?
How many paleontologists do you know? or the how many research technicians and volunteers?
How long has it been since Darwin's 'Origins of the species"?
That basically started the whole thing.
How long since they identified 'LUCY" as an upright primate and ancestor?
Did you know that they just recently identified a fossil bone that is associated with speech?
TVs Discover just last night played a documentary on the ichthyosaur from the pink mountains in Canada. It will take two years to remove the stone from the bone, 'just from the head'. The carcase is still in the river bed. Aren't you expecting a little too much?
If you believe any part of selective breeding and inbreeding then why not the assumption, because you see today's evidence, that we just haven't found the the 'Missing Link' YET?
I was convinced at Lucy.
2006-11-26 06:05:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
> transitional fossils each inhabitants that would not bring about extinction is transitional. Your mom is transitional between your grandmother and you. Be outstanding on your mom. do not call her a fossil. > burial of creatures for the period of Noah's Flood that would not artwork. We get stratification it somewhat is obviously in accordance with time and not density. > and it nonetheless keeps to be. not lots because it did in Darwin's time. The Leakey relatives has been digging up hominin "transitions" for the previous 0.5 century or so. Your mom curiously would not join national Geographic. > The Bible exhibits an understanding of medical wisdom previous that believed to exist on the time the Bible substitute into composed. No it would not. perhaps you may say the comparable difficulty approximately Gulliver's Travels. Jonathan fast suggested the life of two moons of Mars formerly they have been stumbled on with telescopes. you recognize what? fast guessed. > The Bible unambiguously records that the finished time from the beginning up of the universe to the visual attraction of human beings substitute into six undemanding days (advent week). It does certainly. And it somewhat is unambiguously incorrect approximately that, and on the subject of the order of the visual attraction of issues on and rancid Earth. notice that vegetation (0.33 day) are created formerly the sunlight (fourth day). How useful is that?
2016-10-13 03:47:01 · answer #2 · answered by pereyra 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For missing link read red herring. Tens of millions of species-hundreds of complete fossil records showing countless transitional stages of development and still creationists cling to a bag of crap-a fantasy about some alleged missing link in mankind. Forget mankind-if evolution is proven to occur in half a dozen species it occurs in every species unless the creationists can provide a biological mechanism that could prevent it happening.
2006-11-26 05:26:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Origin of man
A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."
Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.
2006-11-26 05:24:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Until you have a biology degree, and evidence to submit, what you think doesn't really matter.
The reason there is an incomplete fossil record is because the Earth is chaotic and tumultuous. Fossils typically only form in sedimentary rock, and this is a rare occurrence.
Trust me, if we could have a fossil of every single organism that ever existed, it would be a scientist's wet dream.
This is impossible, considering organisms consume other organisms to grow. It is highly probable that you and I are made up of organic material that could be considered the fossil of another organism if that fossil still existed in it's complete form.
2006-11-26 05:23:31 · answer #5 · answered by Michael 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
"The fact is that we do have many examples of transitional sequences available. The idea that all transitional sequences could be found is not one that Darwin would have supported. "
"Roger Cuffey's 1974 paper on paleontologic evidence listed references for at least 139 fine-grained species to species transitional sequences. According to an expectation derived from Darwin's own words and values from the real world, it can be seen that the fossils have been rather more forthcoming than one would expect, not less."
2006-11-26 05:26:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Uh huh. And whenever we find a new link in the chain, you complain that now there are TWO holes. I think you're just not understanding the theory. Do some reading and come back. Or got take a class.
2006-11-26 05:29:35 · answer #7 · answered by eri 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There are no million year old dinosaur fossils as they died out 65 Million years ago and they are finding missing links. So, why don't you at least try to get your facts straight before wasting everyones time?
2006-11-26 05:27:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Hmmm... good question. Why also can't they find the stone tablets the 10 Commandments were written on, the Ark of the Covenant, any proof of Noah's ark or the Holy Grail?
2006-11-26 06:57:45 · answer #9 · answered by Brooke 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The scientists will tell you that the chances of anything being fossilized is very remote, and then we have to stumble upon it. Based on some pretty sketchy evidence they draw sweeping conclusions. All of the fossils of pre-historic man that we have would fit in a regular pick-up truck.
2006-11-26 05:25:56 · answer #10 · answered by Random Precision 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋