Are the "links" simply missing due to the virtual absence of intermediate and ancestral forms??

Question

To demonstrate this, I briefly quote some leading experts on the subject, so you can save me from your insults. .maybe...( monkey morals..heh hee )

The late aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland, in his work "Darwin's enigma: Fossils and Other Problems "cites interviews he conducted with 5 leading paleontologists from prestigious natural history museums around the world, all which had extensive fossil collections. He records that " None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that cold document the transformation of one basically different type to other.

Tell me your thoughts.: )

Along the same lines, 2 prominent scientists say:

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic ( gradual ) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradulalist model can be valid.

It remains true, as every palentologist knows, that most new species, gentra, and families, appear in the record suddenly and are NOT led up by known , gradual, completely continuous transitioal sequenses.

Answer 1

My thoughts are that if you were after real answers you would ask this in the Science section, rather than making irresponsible statements and looking for affirmation from people who don't know better.

Never-the-less, it is my duty to say that the fossil record is chock full of transitional species, no matter what intellectually dishonest propaganda you have been reading and would like to believe. Here's "a single example" you can look up from my field of protist fossils, the most incredibly abundant and paleogeographically widespread fossils:

Globigerinoides trilobus - Globigerinoides bisphericus - Praeorbulina sicana - Orbulina universa.

Not only do they show incremental change from the species which first-appears first, to the species which first-appears last, but there are complete gradations with time in between.

Too easy.

The second quote, which is deliberately taken out of context in order to give a false impression (disgusting!), is about 'gradualistic evolution' vs 'punctuated equilibrium', ie. continuous slow evolution vs. relative stasis followed by rapid evolution, between species. It simply says that there is no evidence of large scale 'gradualistic evolution' in the fossil record.

It is NOT saying that the fossil record does not show evolution.

Yes, our records of the first appearance of most species (and sometimes genera and families, especially with less common fossils) has them appearing suddenly. HOWEVER, this is precisely what you would expect given 1) the way speciation is observed to occur in the modern day (relatively rapid and usually in a geographically-restricted subset of the population), 2) the course resolution of the stratigraphic record time wise, 3) the temporal, paleoenvironmental and paleogeographic patchiness of the geological record, and 4) the extremely restricted geographic sampling of that record by palaeontologists.

As far as evolution is concerned, this is irrelevant, as the process of speciation is evidenced by some of the more abundant fossils, and much more importantly, by modern day biology.

The important thing is that whatever level you look at the fossil record, whether it be at the species, genera, family or whatever level, incremental changes from one morphotype to the next, up the geological column, through a branching tree of life, is overwhelmingly indicated.

Answer 2

That's because he asked a question crafted to elicit an answer that he could then quote out of context.

He basically asked, "Show me a lizard becoming a bird." There are no such instant transitions. There was a species of lizard. There was a species of lizard that was warm blooded. There was a species of something like a lizard that was warm blooded and had fuzz. There was a species something kinda like a lizard that became arboreal. .... etc etc etc... you have a species of bird.

None of them were 'incomplete'. They were all perfectly adapted for their immediate environment.

You and I are part of a transitional species, for example.

Every living thing is a member of a transitional species.

Answer 3

Australopithecus afarensis

Answer 4

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html Have fun reading. And you can't say 2 prominent paleontologist say without listing their names.

Answer 5

No. The links are there and Creationists dishonestly deny them.