"Missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term. What we do see in the fossil record are "transitionals" -- and there are a lot of them.
If you can deny their existence, after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be that you choose, for religious reasons, not to accept that evidence.
But it won't make that evidence go away.
[[If you can deny their existence, after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be that you choose, for religious reasons, not to accept that evidence]]
No sir- We reject it based solely on the fact that the biological evidence refutes the claims that they are ‘transitional’, and no amount of postings abotu species change within their own KINDS will undo the fact that every ‘transitional’ that is claimed to be a ‘missing link’ is nothign but a MICROEvolutionary change within a species KIND, and not a much different biologically unique process of Macroevolution. Small changes in info already present can’t create the NECESSARY NEW information needed to move a species beyond it’s own KIND
Many ‘transitions’ huh Coyote? How are the transitions between the Hippo and whale going for you guys these days? It’s a far far leap from a hippo to a whale- and simply showing homological similarities while ignoring the VAST biological differences is nothign but a fairy tale belief that the two were part of a transition. It’s kiddie science to suggest that a few homological similarities suggest the two species KINDS are related and that one evolved into the other- Where’s thje evidence for this Coyote? Where are the ‘transitionals’? Where are the species of transforming hippos losing hteir legs? Losing their tails? Developping more streamlined bodies? Where is the biological evidence showing the developement of NEW information gradually? It’
s ALL missing Coyote- Trillions of differences, and yet you claim a couple of homological similarities is enough to show a Transition? Lol- What a powerful faith you have in your religious belief about life! You can keep insulting ID’ists, but you sir are entirtely the same in your beleif- I take that back- You are more ‘scientifically stunted’ to have so much faith when so much scientific evidence is missing, and so much counter evidences clearly refute Macroevolution.
“We don’t know how, but Nature musta dun it” is every bit a faith as “God lives and will judge everyone who rejects Him”. As ES says, get aboard the gravey train, cuz your train is derailing fast.
Huh? well, whatever. I guess I meant "Missing transitional species."
The fact is that the fish didn't give birth to the dog. So if you believe that the dog did descend from the fish, there had to exist a huge number of transitional species between the two. Like millions of generations, billions of animals, I'm guessing. Now if we find all those millions of transitional species skeletons, the theory works fine. On the other extreme, if none are found, then it's pretty shaky. But if some are found but not all, then it is valid to discuss the concept of "Absent transitional species."
"Missing Link" seemed fine to me, but if you'd rather me use "Undiscovered Transitional Species Fossils," then that is fine.
- and there are a lot of them.
I'll mention more on this down a few lines, but I'm interested in learning about them. approximately, what constitutes a "lot" of them, in this case?
If you can deny their existence,
I'm not denying their existence, I'm just not yet seeing the evidence for them.
after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be that you choose, for religious reasons, not to accept that evidence.
Incidentally, I'm only 30 and I grew up without watching TV, and without popular (or otherwise) science magazines. And even now, about the only times I watch TV is in passing down the isle in walmart or briefly when I show up at a friends house. If I have a few minutes I just find it so much more exhilarating and rewarding to write a program or build something or try a new scientific experiment.
I grew up on a small family farm, taking care of all aspects of animal husbandry and learned how life works from start to finish many times over. Between barnyard duties I read in my physical science books and electronics books and performed different scientific experiments. I like learning new things! (The small amount of schooling I did get also took place on the farm there, and I never attended public school.)
But it won't make that evidence go away.
So by all means, we've been talking about this evidence long enough :-), perhaps you could indulge me and show me your best evidence that dog came from fish!
Remember, that is what is taught in public schools. So it must be supported by enough evidence to be able to be believed with enough certainty to describe it as fact.
Thanks,
-Jesse
If you can deny their existence, after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be...
Dare I say that I found it delightfully amusing that you admonished me against using a newspaper term then immediately informed me that I should have learned from the TV.
May I say to you that the TV is even worse then the newspaper!
-Jesse