PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     question about missing link

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
audax

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question for evolutionist about the missing link. I'm not sure if I am missing something here but, if evolution were true and we evolved from a single cell organism, then there would have to be numerous changes and there should be lots of fossils to prove it. However, every now and then they come up with "the missing link", but shouldn't there be many more fossils to prove these numerous changes?

(Edited by audax 4/17/2006 at 12:35 PM).


-------
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:34 PM on April 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question for evolutionist about the missing link. I'm not sure if I am missing something here but, if evolution were true and we evolved from a single cell organism, then there would have to be numerous changes and there should be lots of fossils to prove it. However, every now and then they come up with "the missing link", but shouldn't there be many more fossils to prove these numerous changes?


There are. We won't ever find a completely in-tact record of every single specie--much less every organism--that ever lived on Earth, however, because nature destroys a great deal of them, the majority of them have yet to be unearthed as it is, and most remains do not fossilize to begin with. The difficulty involved with studying fossils can be associated with a giant system of dominoes. After they're all knocked down, our task is to find out which ones fell in what order, but unfortunately someone rode their bicyle through the pile, and a large percentage of the dominoes are destroyed or missing even before we see them.

I don't think there's much merit in celebrating over this particular "missing link", though. The fossil record was already sufficient enough to suggest Common Descent before the transitional was found, and people who didn't believe the fossil record was sufficient believed so before they knew enough about it to make that kind of conclusion.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:37 PM on April 17, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from audax at 12:34 PM on April 17, 2006 :
I have a question for evolutionist about the missing link. I'm not sure if I am missing something here but, if evolution were true and we evolved from a single cell organism, then there would have to be numerous changes and there should be lots of fossils to prove it.


There are lots of fossils that show it, seems like new ones are found almost every week.  The problem is that for every fossil found for a gap in a lineage, two more gaps are created.


However, every now and then they come up with "the missing link", but shouldn't there be many more fossils to prove these numerous changes?


Even though fossilization is a quite rare occurance, the fossil record shows large numbers of specimens all over the "tree of life", but since these are not "missing", they don't seem to be the links you are looking for.

What is really interesting, is how the Tiktaalik was found.   They went looking for intermediate fossils in rock formations that were intermediate in age between previously known specimens.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:08 PM on April 17, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.