The missing links in the evolution theory? How significant are they?

Question

I'm a God-believer (I believe in God's grand design) taking an anthropology class, currently believe in evolution for the most part, and I am not trying to prove any point here by asking this question. it's a genuine question so please help me if you can. are the missing links in the evolutionary chain up to homo sapien significant flaws? How surprising is it to evolutionists that we have such little fossil evidence in these missing time periods? Is it possible that humans popped out of nowhere (that God really had to take a rib out of Adam to create woman... even if you don't believe in God you know what I mean..."popped into the picture out of nowhere") please don't insult me for believing in both God and evolution... I've always questioned how people translate almost anything, but I do believe the bible is God's word, so please respect that. thanks.

Dashes- I bring that up before someone lectures me how stupid they think the bible is. It's very important to my question and statements that relate to the question that I make that clear. Anything else you want me to explain to you? I thought I was the one asking for help. Thanks for trying.

Answer 1

They are very significant, not to the validity of the theory, but rather to settle out right curiosity.

For instance, the current theory is that birds are a descended from dinosaurs. And we have all kinds of fossils from various critters as they progress closer and closer to those that can fly.

But we can't really tell which ones actually flew first. That is, there are fossils of dinosaurs that might have flown, but we don't know. And of course we have birds NOW that don't fly.

Every interim steps gives us more detail. Its not like "There should be a species that has XXX attributes and its missing so I'm thinking this isn't what happened". Its more like "OK, we know generally what was changing, but what were the specific steps to handle this particular problem."

ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL QUESTION. Probably not a very useful answer, though.

Answer 2

"are the missing links in the evolutionary chain up to homo sapien significant flaws?"
You need to understand, evolution doesn't favor 'flaws'. Evolution has only one direction, forward. Things evolve to suit their environment. "Flaws" are a human concept.

"How surprising is it to evolutionists that we have such little fossil evidence in these missing time periods?"
It's not surprising at all. Do you know how hard it is to make a fossil? Pretty dang hard! It's a surprise we have as many as we do.

"Is it possible that humans popped out of nowhere (that God really had to take a rib out of Adam to create woman... even if you don't believe in God you know what I mean..."popped into the picture out of nowhere")"
Sure it's 'possible' (not to be confused with 'probable'), but the evidence says otherwise; that it just didn't happen that way.


"I've always questioned how people translate almost anything, but I do believe the bible is God's word, so please respect that"
Why bring it up? Me thinks you are fishing for disagreement.

Answer 3

Where are the missing rocks?

The ones from the big bang that mixed their dust with rain to create mud from whence came the primordial soup where everything was cooked in the beginning?
I often ponder that.

But the rocks still must be here on earth. Life sprang from the dust of the rocks. But which rocks?

There are major rock formations on earth.
Rock of Gibraltar and Mt. Rushmore are two that pop into mind.
Could it be one of them?

I think if we could find the mystery of the missing rock, instead of worrying about fossils all the time, out knowledge of how life began would be answered a lot sooner.

Just my thoughts.

Answer 4

There is no reason (as far as I'm aware) that someone who believes in God can't recognise the reality of evolution. The only people who say otherwise are Creationists, mostly in the United States.

The fossil record, of its nature is patchy. It depends on many improbable events - that a given creature will die in a place where fossilisation can happen (very rare), and that the fossil will survive (unlikely) have been discovered up to now (it's easier to find needles in haystacks).

There is no need to explain gaps in the fossil record. What Creationists fail to address is the links that have been found, not the ones that haven't.

[Edit] and sisterzeal's "answer" is simply a copy and paste from "Dr Dino's" website. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76 Most of the questions posed can and have been answered. This is a common creationist strategy: copy and paste vast numbers of questions, each one of which requires an answer many times longer than the questions. Be aware of this way Creationists commonly try to shut down discussion.

Answer 5

I believe in evolution through God's hand. A lot of people do. We just aren't the people who rant and rave. We are known as rational people.

It is not surprising that there are gaps in the fossil record. It is very hard, biologically and geologically, to make a fossil. However, new fossils are being found all the time. We call them transitional fossils. The gaps are not flaws in the theory. They are flaws in the process of preservation, not even flaws so much as the nature of it.

Here is a list of transitional fossils. Its pretty complete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I, too, hold the Bible as a holy book. But you must remember it is a book. It was written by men. And men, especially then, cannot understand the entire working of God.

Answer 6

lack of transitional forms is about as significant as gaps in the observation of planetary orbits. it would be nice to have that information, but the lack of it doesn't cast doubt on the trends that are evident in the data that we do have. as far as i know nobody has suggested that the planets jump around the solar system when no one is looking. what would be a problem is if we knew that we should be finding fossils everywhere, we looked, and we didn't find them. but fossilisation is rare (most dead organisms don't leave fossils, and also transitional populations would have low numbers and restricted geographical ranges), paleontologists haven't looked everywhere, and they do find about as many transitional fossils as would be expected. it is like a jigsaw, we don't have all the pieces yet, but most of the pieces we do have fit together. the picture so far looks very much like evolution, not special creation of "kinds".

Answer 7

There are no missing links. That is a non-scientific contruct still in use.

Think of this way: if you have a gap between two fossils and I fill that gap, then there are two more gaps on either side of the new fossil.

Funny that "missing transitional species" is brought up as more were found this year in China, showing the feathered dinosaurs on their way to being avians.

Ah, an yet another misquote of Darwin.

Answer 8

They're not that significant. For one thing, only a very small percentage of organisms become fossils. Fossilization requires certain circumstances, one of which is dying quickly in a situation that would preserve the organism.

It's completely reasonable that as hominids grew more intelligent fewer of them died in the necessary circumstances for fossilization. For example, smarter hominids would not get trapped in tar pits.

Answer 9

They are significant in that we don't have the details of the picture.

There are alternate confirmations at the molecular level. On of my favorites is the CYP21 locus. Humans and chimps have the same gene arrangement, but gorillas and orangutans share a different configuration. A number of genes show similar patterns.

Answer 10

Here's my respectful opinion to your question:
Evolution of mankind ------Theory, Hypothesis, and lack of "absolute evidence".
Is there really a missing link, or are evolutionists missing a
link with their creator!
I won't lose any significant sleep over their on-going quest for answers, I already have mine.