A question about evolution.?

Question

Macro evolution says that one species changes into another species over the course of millions of years. But have scientist ever found a missing link from one species to another? There's something called living fossils. Animals which scientist have thought been exticnt for millions of years, been then have been found still living. Over a 150 such living fossils have been found, and none of them show any signs of evolution.

One of the oldest living fossils found is the lobe fish. Believed to have been exticnt for over 50 million years, it was found to be still alive in the Indian Ocean. In fact, the Lobe Fish is called index fossil, meaning scientist use it to date rock formations. I guess these dates will have to be rethought. The amazing thing, their so-called 50 million year old fossils, and today's lobe fish, show no evidence of evolution.

I believe the Bible, that each kind of animal reproduces it's own kind. If macro-evolution is true, where are the missing links?

Answer 1

What's wrong with you? Scientist don't need missing links, or evidence, they have their theories. And as long as scientist have their theories, even though their theories are constantly changing, then Christians are wrong. All we Christians have is a two thousand year old book, and though none of the scientific evidence in the Bible has ever been proven to be wrong, and secular scientific theories are always changing, they're right, and we are wrong. Maybe at the end of time, God can explain it to them.

Murnip, not one living fossil has needed to evolve over millions of years? Not one? You would think they would have found at least one living fossil that showed some signs of evolution. I mean, the time between the fossils and these living animals are supposedly millions of years. And not even the slightest sign of evolution? Maybe the Bible is right, there's only been about 6,000 years, and no evolution.

Answer 2

"Missing link" is a misnomer. The more proper term is transitional fossil. Missing link invokes an image of one single fossil that would connect one species to another, and that's not correct. The truth is far more complex. Species don't transform from one thing into another; rather they are birthed from older species. It's a subtle difference, but crucial. Think of it as a shrub, where the various endpoints are today's species. Each line converges as we move from the top of the tree down. It's about ancestory, not direct lines.

It's interesting you mention lobe fish. I can only assume you mean the coelacanth as there is no such thing as a "lobe fish." Rather, there is a family of species known as the lobe-finned fish named for their fleshy fins. The coelacanth does indeed still live today, however it has indeed changed over time in many drastic ways. The skeleton of a modern coelacanth is different than the skeleton of an ancient coelacanth.

Another interesting find in the lobe-finned fish family is the Tiktaalik, which shows very distinct characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. This is a transitional fossil.

We also have surprisingly complete records of the evolution of horses from their common ancestors, and whales from their land-based common ancestors. To say that transitional fossils don't exist is a blatantly false assertion.

And finally, what is a kind? That's a very slippery term that creationists use and it doesn't really many anything. One could say that a dog is a kind, but a chinhuahua can't give birth to a great dane, so does that mean they aren't the same kind even though a german shepherd could reproduce with a great dane? Also, the way you've worded it, you're making the false implication that the theory of evolution claims a dinosaur gave birth to a fully-formed bird. This is most certainly not the position of any evolutionary biologist. Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a long time.

Here's a tip: learn about evolution before you start trying to construct arguments against it. And don't just trot out the same old tired false arguments. That just doesn't fly.

Answer 3

Evolution is a long slow process of small mutations. Mutations occur when some individuals of a particular species are exposed to a different environment and there is a need to mutate in order to adapt to these new surroundings. So if a species is in the same environment today that it was in 50 million years ago, then there was never a need for it to mutate. That however does not mean that it's brother didn't.
Today we have a variety of scientific methods used to date sites and fossils. It is very rare that anything is dated by only one of those means.

Answer 4

Yes, there have been plenty of transitional fossils , or "missing links" found.

About index fossils: it is not the only method used to date rocks. If it were, then obviously geological dating would be a bit of a joke. It's possible to date rocks by other means as well.

The reason the "living fossils" are still much the same as they were millions of years ago is that their environment has not changed very much and so the fish have not had to adapt to fit their environment in order to survive.

Answer 5

Religious people always go on about missing links but I just don't understand it.

How about a missing link between apes and human beings - Look how many species there are in the hominid species, there are over a dozen ranging from nearly ape to various species almost indistinguishable from modern man - not impressed? Of course not! You'll pick the one closest to man and say between them is a 'missing link'.

Dolphins and Blue whales are mammals - they evolved on land - I expect you want that proved, though why God would put animals in different families when they have different environments I have no idea unless his idea of fun is to maliciously mislead people - now look up Basilosaurus - it has tiny vestigial FEET. Explain that 'missing link', contrast that with modern whales which have a totally superfluous pelvic girdle. As if their ancestors had legs. Strange, isn't it? Go further back, look at Packicetus, or Ambulocetis. Not impressed?

Of course not. Theists don't want to learn anything, do they? They want to reject whatever interferes with their superstitious dogma. I doubt any creationists realise that the evidence for macroevolution would be overwhelming even if we'd never found a single fossil.

Thumbs down huh? Well, the truth hurts.

Answer 6

a million) in accordance to evolutionists, people advanced from apes? people are apes through definition. Linnaeus categorised us as such and he became a creationist. 2) there are various of shown data in technological know-how, yet evolution is only a concept. fake with the aid of a false impression of the note concept. A actuality, in technological know-how, is a discrete factor of steerage. Theories connect data and clarify them. there is not any more desirable type than concept. 3) A transitional kind is a fossil of an animal it is an element one species and area yet another. fake. All organisms are transitional. 4) The age of the earth is determined through scientists totally by ability of the radioactive relationship of fossils ? The age of the Earth became determined through relationship a meteor on the conception that the image voltaic equipment became all the same age. All different calculations in fantastic condition the age discovered. 5) The medical approach starts with a prediction and then looks for data to help that prediction? It starts with commentary. Then a hypothesis is formed from that commentary. After the hypothesis is formed, scientists seem for data to help or falsify the hypothesis. 6) the conception of evolution consists of the tremendous Bang? fake. 7) To position self assurance in evolution is to believe that life and count number number got here from no longer some thing? fake.

Answer 7

Microraptor. 125 million years old. Feathers, teeth, and a wishbone. You know any birds or lizards like that?

The creationist expects evolution to be a continuous process, like baking bread. Evolution doesn't happen if there are no environmental pressures on an organism. That's why crocodiles haven't changed in 250 million years. And that's why there are still apes.

Try to know what you are talking about, because you'll find sure as anything that people here are going to.
_

Answer 8

Just because all the missing links are not known does not mean that evolution did not occur. Do you deny the existence of earlier forms of man? . . . . Neanderthal Man? . . . . Cro-Magnon Man? . . . . Homo Erectus? There is abundant fossil evidence that these earlier forms of man existed.

On the other hand, creation science requires that we believe in talking serpents. And the only "evidence" you have for a talking serpent is that it was part of a primitive man's ancient creation fable.

Answer 9

yes, they have found the links

Where did you get this crap? It must have been a pretty useless creationist propaganda website because I can refute ALL of this garbage.
1)Yes, they have found missing links, paleontologists recently found a fish fossil that was able to walk and breathe on land, look it up if you do not believe me. Did you know that churches everywhere are protesting a Kenyan museum that is putting on display an exhibit that shows the evolution of man USING ACTUAL FOSSILS?!!!! Look it up.
2)Living fossils show no sign of evolution??? Since when!!!!? If you look at bacteria and smaller organisms, you can see them evolve in YOUR lifetime.
3)index fossils are a JOKE!!!!! NO ONE that is a scientist uses fossils to date the age of rock formations. They use radio-carbon dating (which IS accurate by the way), as well as the layers of rock to figure out how old the rock is.


Stop making ridiculous arguments to try and refute evolution. It HAPPENS, it HAS HAPPENED, and it WILL HAPPEN. All you are doing is fighting reality

Answer 10

Jumping to the supernatural conclusion does not make rational sense. I am an atheist because I don't believe in deities and the word atheist describes this state of disbelief. I don't believe in deities because no argument or evidence presented to me in support of their existence has been convincing.

1. Biology adequately describes life and emotions without appealing to mystical invisible dieties

2. Astronomy adequately describes the formation of stars/planets/universe/etc without appealing to mystical invisible dieties

3. Geology adequately describes the evolution of the Earth, land formations, etc without appealing to mystical invisible dieties

4. Psychology describes the human psyche better than appealing to mystical invisible dieties

5. Appealing to mystical invisible dieties is an appeal to ignorance

6. There's no physical evidence for the existence of mystical invisible dieties

7. A myriad of mystical invisible dieties have been posited by emphatically superstitious societies and have been proven to be products of overly active imaginations (today's religion is tomorrow's myth) and ignorance.

8. Believing in mystical invisible dieties seems to become quite absurd when those who posit the mystical invisible dieties begin explaining why and how they exist in the face of contradictory physical evidence

9. As scientific knowledge increases, the role of the mystical invisible dieties oddly gets pushed further and further back.

10. Mystical invisible dieties are mystical invisible dieties (ie can never be found by empirical methods)



I could go on, but you get my drift.........