the missing link?

Question

on the concept of the missing link...

The concept that each species is a link in a great chain of life forms was largely developed in the typological age of biology, when species “fixity” (the idea that species were unchanging) was the dominant paradigm.

But while the links of a chain are discrete, unchanging, and easily defined, groups of life forms are not. Since species are not fixed (they change through time), it can be difficult to be sure where one species ends and another begins. For these reasons, many modern biologists prefer a continuum metaphor, in which shades of one life form grade into another. Life is not arranged as links, but as shades. The metaphorical chain is far less substantial than it sounds.

Thus the chain metaphor is wrong. It doesn’t accurately represent biology as we know it today, but as it was understood over four centuries ago.

oh yeah, any thoughts?

Answer 1

The theory of evolution is constantly evolving. I hope I live long enough to see where it stops. As long as there is at least a few honest men in the field of science-I think the right answer will eventually be discovered. I just hope no one pushes it aside as faulty data.

Answer 2

OK, I'll take a stab at an 'idea'. :-)

Let's leave H.S.S. out of the picture for a moment.

The Aurochs. Would it be an acceptable premise that, in Southern Europe, at the time of synchronicity of H.S.S. and H.N., the Aurochs ( Bos primigenius ) would have been the primary source of bovine meat products for both branches of the Homo genus ? We're talking about 40 - 50,000 years ago, right ?

The current primary source of bovine dairy and meat products is Bos Taurus, the domestic cow. Like all 'domesticated' species of both livestock and plant varieties, they 'appeared' on the scene around 10 - 12,000 years ago.

How did Bos Primigenius get to be Bos Taurus ?

You say that it isn't a 'chain', well ok, then what is it ? Neither Bos Primigenius nor Homo Neanderthalis are around today, although both were thriving 40,000 years or so ago. Why is that ? Contrary to recent 'scientific' opinion, H.N. wasn't a 'caveman', he actually had a higher average brain weight than H.S.S.. The Aurochs was arguably the 'fitter' species, better adapted for fighting off predators. It seems peculiar that both seemed better adapted for their environments, yet both became extinct so recently in Terran historical terms.

Answer 3

First off, species never evolved from one to another, Charles Darwin came up with a hypothesis and called it evolution when he had only seen adaptation in the beaks of finches. Charles Darwin's hypothesis has never nor will ever be proven. The fact is that all creatures were created in 6 days at the beginning of the world. God, in his omnicience, has given us a lack of links between the species so that hypotheses like these could easily be disproved by simply looking at creation.

Answer 4

i think the problem is the word "species"

used to be that biologists considered the creatures to be of the same species if they could mate and produce fertile offspring

but then you get squirly--suppose species A and B can mate successfully, and so can A and C. But B and C can't--there goes your definition.

i think the term species is going the same way as "race"

Answer 5

Makes sense to me, but you should expect some impertinent, irrelevant noise in response to this post.

Answer 6

Alien life forms also contributed to our being here.

Answer 7

You're probably fairly close to the truth. Welcome to neo-Darwinism.