Replies

Actually you are the www.yahoo.com. YOu have no idea what you are talking about. The missing link is a transitional form of a species, a mouse with wings that is turing into a bat for example.

Please provide a source for your claim that evolutionists think bats evolved from mice. The Germans call a bat a "Fliedermaus." That's about as close as it gets and it's not very close.

It is some species that is supposedly mutating into another species.

I have provided you with links to fossil series. You are simply repeating the foaming at the mouth which prompted me to ask in the first place, what is missing and why are the fossil series we do have not it? We have reptiles turning into mammals. We have dinosaurs turing into birds. We have land animals turning into whales. We have apes turning into humans.

None of the fossils in those series were known when Darwin published Origin in 1859 setting out the theory that all the life forms on Earth are connected via gradual evolution in a tree of common descent. That should now be credited as a great prediction, but we have instead this class of wilfull idiots asking "Where are the missing links?"

I'm going to ask you again. I'm going to type slowly so you can read my fingers.

Why is nothing we have this funny missing link thing? What would it take for something to be "it?"

We already both know you're going to claim the above picture is not it. Your job is to say why and how that's not it and say what "it" is.

While bats did not come from mice, birds did come from dinosaurs. Here's a saurian foreclaw in the act of turning into a wing.

That's the dino-bird counterpart to your mouse-bat thing that nobody even thinks happened. But we have the evidence in this case (and lots more where that came from). But we both know you're going to say that's not "it" either.

You're going to say that because nothing we ever have can be allowed to be "it." And what kind of game is it to pretend you would accept something as "the missing link" (were it only to be presented) when you think you'd go to Hell for acknowledging the truth? And what kind of God tells people to act like you?

What survival benefit does a half-leg/half-wing give a mutated freak? Why would such a clumsy fellow, who could neither fly nor run on all fours, nor easily seize prey with his forelimbs, survive better than his more ordinary neighbors to live to reproduce and continue on the road to birdhood? Until he has a useful wing (and the musculature and know-how to take advantage of it), the thing is a liability, if anything.

I remember reading that early winged dinosaurs could not truly fly, but climbed up trees and glided down. While that sounds like fun, I'm wondering what the big evolutionary advantage was to such behavior. A few squirrles do that. Are they evolving into birds, too?

Maybe I'm confused about the whole survival-of-the-fittest thing, but even if something is shown to have come about slowly, incrementally, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the product of blind chance. Okay, you've got a picture of something that might be a lizard with some sort of little wing. What does that say about the mechanism by which that turns into a bird?

Also, what do all the skulls prove? It is accepted that there were different hominids that were not ancestors of Homo Sapiens. There are also gross differences even among skulls of modern Homo Sapiens (of different races).

What land animals turned into whales? Darwin thought it was bears. My kid's science book speculated it might have been dogs that hung around the water too long (Labs no doubt). How do these transformations come about? How do mutants, who are not specialized to their environment nonetheless prosper so well they stick with their in-between forms long enough to develop a winning strategy in the evolutionary sweepstakes?

How do you get multiple system components that make no sense individually coming together beautifully at just the right time? Why is complexity favored when simplicity can do the job of blindly transmitting the genes at a heck of a lot less energy expended?

I don't think I'm an idiot, too (although that's never a safe assumption). These are questions that should be easily answered, since they are pretty common-sense ones, really, and I'm sure have been asked many times before.

Bottom line is, once you have proven the regular transformation of one species into a completely different one (and I'm not sure that's been done) you still have to explain why and how that happens. A theory that mutations confer survival benefits even during the transitional period where they would seem to be less useful than the preceeding form is illogical.

The problem with that skull chart is that it's a lot like lining up cars and saying they evolved from each other.

"A" is a modern chimpanzee skull. They aren't considered by evolutionists to be human ancestry, so why is it even there?

"B,C,D,E,&F" are all an extinct ape named arithopicenes(sp). They aren't considered ancestral to or from chimpanzees. F is skull 1470 which was originally found in 100 pieces and reconstructed to have a flat face like a human. After Creationist Scientists were allowed to examine it and started pointing out features that were clearly arithopicenes in nature, it was reconstructed with a sloping face and reclassed into the ape category.

Skull G is considered human but looks to be a terrible specimen. I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions fro it.

"H" and "I" are considered early humans.

"M&N" are modern humans. "J,K,L" Are all Neanderthal skulls. Neanderathals aren't considered to be ancestral to modern humans either. They were contemporaries of modern humans and actually lived with modern humans. Their skulls were on average larger than modern humans, but you can't tell that from your chart, making me think they either aren't representative or aren't to scale.

Bottom line is you have a row of ape skulls and a row of human skulls. You don't really have the progression that's intended to portray.