Where's the missing link?

Question

To be more specific...The idea of a SINGULAR creation deity is illogical to me. I do see similarities between mammal and primate behavior and anatomy. And a few similarities between mammal and reptiles/birds. Not very many though. Even with millions of years to consider, primates seem to be relatively 'new' on the scene and don't seem to have that much in common with reptiles or birds. (Also, I thought I saw in an Archeology magazine, of the 'current' homo sapien skeleton's found, none are older than 6,000 years. Any info on this?)

Answer 1

The "missing link" question seems to have little to do with the bulk of your question. So allow me to address them separately.

>"Where is the missing link?"

There is no such thing ... so it can't be missing. The "missing link" phrase is something made up by people who do not understand evolution at all. Evolution is about an ever-branching TREE of life, species branching from other branches. So there cannot be a single link that unites all species, or humans to chimps, or mammals to reptiles. For example, the link between mammals and reptiles is a long, long series of species and branches (most of them now extinct) over millions of years, hundreds of thousands of generations.

If you're asking about the "missing link" between mammals and reptiles, the most obvious thing is a branch of reptiles called the "therapsids" (Google it for more information), but this is not a single species but rather a structural *class* of early reptiles (another example being the diapsids, which evolved into some of the dinosaurs, and later birds).

But if you go in asking for "the missing link" (as if there is only one), you will be TOTALLY confused about evolution. This is precisely why creationists *LOVE* to keep bringing up the phrase ... creationist arguments often consist of trying to keep people confused by using bogus terms and concepts that have no scientific basis.

>"And a few similarities between mammal and reptiles/birds. Not very many though."

Oof. Not true! Don't just look superficially! There are loads of similarities. All mammals and all reptiles (and all birds) are tetrapods (four-limbed creatures ... even snakes are classified as tetrapods because they show evidence of vestigial leg structures in embryos, and even in some species like the pythons ... similarly, aquatic mammals like whales and dolphins have the same embryonic structures that show that they are tetrapods too). Almost all mammals and reptiles have five digits on each leg. Mammals and reptiles are both vertebrates (have a spinal chord encased in bone). They have similarities in bone structures, muscle structure, nervous system, digestive system, circulatory systems, sensory systems, and on and on. Even the inner structure of the mammal ear has the same 5 bones as the hinged jaw structure of reptiles.

And it's beyond just *anatomical* similarities ... when you look at the proteins used (for example) in digestion, metabolism, vision, muscle funtion, etc., etc., these are all the same types of proteins, in many cases the exact same proteins.

But *far* more compelling than all the physical and biochemical similarities are the genetic similarities. The similarities between mammals and reptiles is there *in spades* in the DNA. In fact it is there in DNA that codes for no useful functions ... in the same way that it can be shown that a kid copied a book report from a web site by showing that he included the same typos.

>"Also, I thought I saw in an Archeology magazine, of the 'current' homo sapien skeleton's found, none are older than 6,000 years. Any info on this?"

Hmm ... Archaeology is the study of human civilizations through ruins, human artifacts, and occasionally human remains. Archaeologists don't deal in things much older than 6,000 to 10,000 years at most, when humans started constructing things. So if it was an actual skeleton (not a fossil, which archaeologists rarely deal with), then it would not be surprising that it was fairly recent.

Archaeology has almost nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 2

99% of all life is extinct!! That means that we and all life of earth are the result of a long line of trials, successes and failures.

Fossils only form under precise conditions and is why they are so important when we find unusal or rare ones as they can help fill all the missing information we have.

We can see some trends in the patterns of change in some species, while others have very poor information.....
Just to point out that there are lots of "dead ends" in the fossil information too, in that there are species that developed but were unsuccessful and died out without leading to other species......there are many failures of species to anyone that has ever succeeded, like us.....

Its not only that, but DNA, which is the same for all plants, animals etc on earth...in that its the same makeup (with nitrogen compound, sugar and 4 bases (A, G, C ,T)) and our DNA has a 50% similarity with a banana apparently!!

I am not sure about this info in the "current" homo sapiens skeleton found....how current???....the Cro Magnun man is much older than that and is considered the "primative" human (even tho there are some changes still occuring eg the prominant brow ridge in particular)....

Answer 3

You must understand that not everything that died in the past has fossilised. Fossilation is a difficult and rare process, involving the dead organism to be buried quickly under anaerobic conditions before aerobic bacteria has a chance to decay it. The missing link people speak off may have existed, but perhaps they existed in too low numbers or lived in too damp an environment to fossilise successfully.

The reason we can find most dinosaur fossils is that swamps and tar pits were present across these areas. The death of a dinosaur in these swamps and pits prevented decay and allowed fossilisation to take place.

Answer 4

their is no missing link, an animal will always be an animal, they dont change into something else, and a human being is always a human being and they dont change either, if a monkey goes to bed lets say for 10,000 years and if he is still alive,when he wakes up and looks into the mirror, he still will be a monkey

Answer 5

I don't think that either theory can be proven to an absolute so it is what you believe it is. after all how does it change anything either way. How do we know for sure that there is a missing link.

Answer 6

MANY HAVE BEEN SEEKING OUT THE "LOST" PIECE OF THE PUZZLE EVER SINCE DARWIN POSTULATED HIS THEORY.