If evolution is true then where is the missing link? And wouldn't there be tons of them?

Question

Think about it - millions of years of evolution is the claim - the earth should be scattered with them?

Answer 1

If you understood evolution you wouldn't be asking such a dumb question.

If you can drag yourself out of the morass of muddled thinking and Creationist brainwashing just long enough to take an unbiased view of what is actually happening then you might want to read my previous answer, which I'm getting rather bored with repeating for all the sheep on here who only believe what someone in a pulpit tells them to.

If you really want to know the answer click here >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlTaxiSUAQquUSTZK51s5y7sy6IX?qid=20061119093016AAFPjyA

(go on... I dare you... open your mind just a tiny crack...)

Answer 2

Tackling the theory (and it is nothing more than that) of evolution is like trying to see a fly on a branch on a tree on earth by standing on the moon and using a magnifying glass. Everything evolves: our abilities, our emotions, our awareness of the world around us. We are constantly in a state of change and growth and adaptation. To understand how evolution works, and doesn't work, you have to understand basic biology. All life is cyclical. We start out as an egg and sperm, develop into a blastula, then into an embryo, then a fetus, then we are born as a baby - we become toddlers, teenagers, yound adults, middle aged, senior citizens, then plant food. As the author of this question has stated, and as biology clearly points out, there should be millions of representative examples of every stage of evolution, if evolution were indeed anything more than a theory. Every biological creation has a cyclical history of development. Using the excuse that "conditions" are no longer the same on a progressing scale throughout history, therefore there are no biological exhibits left from every phase but the current one is a ridiculous premise. Yet, that is exactly what evolutionists expect you to believe. The missing links either went "bye bye" simply because the conditions no longer exist to support a previous biological cycle, or they never existed in the first place. But then again, that's why evolution is called a "theory" now isn't it.

Answer 3

That is a good question, and Darwin actually predicted that same thing. We actually have a very small sample of the total number of plants and animals that have EVER lived. It doesn't however prove that evolution isn't true (depending on your definition of true, you should say 'fact', unless this is a philosophical discussion). Evolution is the best model based on what we observe. You wouldn't have told Christopher Columbus that the earth was round just because he miscalculated its size. We can observe evolution, but we don't know enough for it to be predictive, or even explain why it works.

Answer 4

There are SEVERAL things wrong with this question:
1. Life has been evolving on this planet for 3.5 BILLION years. The first billion years or so was simply unicellular life evolving.
2. The term "missing link" is misleading. Speciation (the evolution of one species into another) is not a cut and dry process; the dividing line between the ancestor species and the descendant species is not always easy to find.
3. Fossilization happens in very rare and specific circumstances, which explains why they are so rare. Usually, a dead organism is fossilized when it is buried under sediment before it is decomposed. Organisms can also be fossilized under volcanic ash, amber, etc. Not all areas have an equal number likelihood of allowing for fossilization; tropical fossils, for example, are rarer. In addition, some tissues preserve better than others; namely, bone and shell (hard tissue) fossilizes better than skin, organs, and other soft tissues. (Though there are some fossils which are just the impressions of organisms.)
4. There have been lots of transitional fossils found. For example, Darwin predicted that a fossil transitional between land mammals and whales would be found; it has since been found.

By the way; Gould was misquoted. Here are the real quotes:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils) -- In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed." -- Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History magazine (May 1977)

Rare or even "extremely rare" does not mean "non-existent" -- more Gould:
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." -- Stephen Jay Gould (Natural History, May 1994)

He also said:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (May 1981 reprinted in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, page 260)

And, I could find nothing about Darwin saying anything like what the person above said. Methinks the creationists just like to twist scientists' words, or if they can't, outright fabricate.

Answer 5

And herin you see the problem. If we insist that there always must be a missing link then we'd have to assume there is an infinite number of the, which of course, there aren't.

Thus we must assume that there simply isn't always a missing link.
Perhaps there is sometimes one or two or three or four intermeadiate individuals who have not been preserved for us to find , or we simply would never find them because of the size of the Earth or we wouldn't recognize them as anything special if we did find them, but maybe they never existed to begin with.

Answer 6

This whole missing link BS is just another lie. There is no missing links, they are all there and hundreds more are discovered every year. As far as remains go nothing lasts forever and the environment needed for fossilization to occur is pretty rare. To put this in perspective for you just think of the billions & billions of organisms that have died over these billions of years. If their bones did not decompose dont you think everytime you dug a hole you would find some bones? How long do you think your remains will last? No more than a couple hudred years under normal cicumstances

Answer 7

Read "Rational Spirituality" available on the Dhaxem website, if you want to learn about true evolution, and if you are an intelligent person.

Conveyed from the Source only in February 2006, it had already become the thinking person's modern bible.

Answer 8

There are comprehensive sets of fossils showing species to species transition for hundreds of species. When will creationists get it through their heads that the "missing link" is a massive red herring? They are focusing on something that in reality has no meaning-if there were even half a dozen complete fossil records showing evidence of evolution it would be proof but there are in fact several hundred. That evolution occurs is so certain based on the evidence available that those who dispute it are only the ignorant or bigoted.

Answer 9

I can't speak for all religions. But science and christianity don't conflict. What christianity conflicts with is evolution which is not science. The fossils do not show evolution. They actually show complex creatures appearing suddenly during the cambrian explosion with no transitional forms before them. Darwin was aware of that problem. He said "they're out there by the millions.....you should be stumbling over them as you walk out your back door". That's a quote from Darwin. His explanation as to why they hadn't found them yet was that archeology was in it's infant stages at that time. He predicted that after he was dead they would find them by the millions. But here we are 150 years later and they still haven't found any. Stephan J. Gould who was a Harvard paleontolgist and one of the top evolutionists in the world until he died a few years ago said this:"there's a trade secret among the paleontologists of the world.....namely, that the transitional forms don't exist". My question would be...why is it a trade secret? If the evidence doesn't show evolution why don't they tell the world. The reason is because evolution is a religion just like christianity(just read Ann Coulters new book'Godless'). Evolution, like christianity, must ultimately be accepted by faith.
But christianity is faith based upon reason. Evolution is just blind faith based upon nothing. It's no surprise that Gould and Niles Eldridge eventually gave up on darwinian evolution and started a new theory called 'Punctuated Equilibrium', a theory which Richard Goldschmidt(also an evolutionist) called the 'hopeful monster theory' a name he gave to it in derision. He descibed it by saying that a reptile once laid an egg and, VIOLA, out popped a bird. If you believe that, I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you....ON PLUTO.

Answer 10

Evolution is true . but something has to be created first before it can start evolving. Also the first forms were so small and fragile that their is no discernible trace left of them. Then you have the "world Floods" that destroyed the existing life forms. traces of them can be found. in piles where the flood waters deposited them. Most were ground into unidentifiable dust by the floods.So a lot of species have no direct missing links to find.(The only ones that can be traced are those that died on land or in mud or tar pits.Some in landslides.were their bones were not eaten by predators.). Or frozen in snow drifts during the Ice ages and became part of a glacier.