Find solution
Did they ever find the missing link in human evolution?

Evolution and its missing links...?

  • me and my friend are having a large discussion/argument that is EXTREMELY thought provoking. I am currently arguing for the creationists(i am agnostic to a degree and not a creationist really... i just wanted to take on the arguing side of one) while he is arguing for evolutionists. we have both made really valid points but he has to charge his phone at the moment. unfortunately we are only juniors in highschool and our knowledge is limited to 11 and a half years of schooling. while he is recharging his phone i have had some time to think about our discussion and nao i haz questions! can anyone link me to a website that shows the gradual progression of certain strings of species evolving? i remember i saw a reeally good diagram in 8th grade with horses. Also what happened to these missing links? They existed but why can scientists not find their fossils as frequently as species that have already evolved*? it took hundreds of millions of years for certain species to evolve, but what happened to the animals in-between 1 and 120 million years. why can we not seem to find the fossils that exhibit gradual evolution over long periods of time. transitional fossils, if you will. ex: a platypus o.0? was there once a platypus with no bill? then kind of a bill, then more of a bill, then MORE of a bill? PLEASE TEACH ME! feel free to correct the crap out of me, lol. this is a learning experience for me guys.. please no hate, I'm not a creationist just a kid who is curious about evolution.

  • Answer:

    Firstly, fossils are extremely rare and improbable events. The fossil record is highly imperfect and incomplete. There is no guarantee that extinct species are going to leave fossil evidence for the satisfaction of curious apes arguing over the meaning of life millions of years later. Secondly, there are loads of missing links, but each time we find one, it creates two new gaps and then the creationists say "But where are the missing links?". So there's a fundamental conceptual problem in their argument. Thirdly, the fossil record shows that the older layers of rock contain no fossils, then the next oldest show only simple life forms, and the more and more recent you get, the life forms are more and more complex. If that doesn't evidence evolution, what does it evidence? And how could that fact possibly be consistent with a creationist explanation? Presumably God did it for no particular reason, just for fun? Fourthly, the issue of intermediate forms has been exhaustively and excellently treated in Darwin's "Origin of Species". It's written for the general educated reader - like you. *After* you have read that, you will be in a position to debate intelligently on the question of missing links. But basically all the arguments against evolution based on "where are the missing links" are based on conceptual errors and fallacies that were disproved over 150 years ago.

rod at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Firstly, fossils are extremely rare and improbable events. The fossil record is highly imperfect and incomplete. There is no guarantee that extinct species are going to leave fossil evidence for the satisfaction of curious apes arguing over the meaning of life millions of years later. Secondly, there are loads of missing links, but each time we find one, it creates two new gaps and then the creationists say "But where are the missing links?". So there's a fundamental conceptual problem in their argument. Thirdly, the fossil record shows that the older layers of rock contain no fossils, then the next oldest show only simple life forms, and the more and more recent you get, the life forms are more and more complex. If that doesn't evidence evolution, what does it evidence? And how could that fact possibly be consistent with a creationist explanation? Presumably God did it for no particular reason, just for fun? Fourthly, the issue of intermediate forms has been exhaustively and excellently treated in Darwin's "Origin of Species". It's written for the general educated reader - like you. *After* you have read that, you will be in a position to debate intelligently on the question of missing links. But basically all the arguments against evolution based on "where are the missing links" are based on conceptual errors and fallacies that were disproved over 150 years ago.

Sienna

Sienna has dealt with the question wonderfully. The below link covers the subject with more detail than could be given here:

Paul B

Sienna has dealt with the question wonderfully. The below link covers the subject with more detail than could be given here:

Paul B

Rational Ape

Rational Ape

Argument 1 : Many missing links vs only one missing rib. Evolutionists have more and more missing links ("each fossil found creates 2 new gaps" - @Sienna), while creationists face only 1 missing rib issue (according to Genesis, men should have 1 less rib than women). So the issue with evolution is much more serious than the issue with creationism. ;-) Argument 2 : if Americans evolved from Brits, why are there still Brits? Usually, its with humans and apes, but Americans and British makes this argument more modern. Argument 3 : if terrestrial vertebrates evolved from fishes, how come whales devolved back to sea? Btw, a good example of evolution within a group could be the evolution of cetacean. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/whales/archaeoceti.htm

ob1knob

Argument 1 : Many missing links vs only one missing rib. Evolutionists have more and more missing links ("each fossil found creates 2 new gaps" - @Sienna), while creationists face only 1 missing rib issue (according to Genesis, men should have 1 less rib than women). So the issue with evolution is much more serious than the issue with creationism. ;-) Argument 2 : if Americans evolved from Brits, why are there still Brits? Usually, its with humans and apes, but Americans and British makes this argument more modern. Argument 3 : if terrestrial vertebrates evolved from fishes, how come whales devolved back to sea? Btw, a good example of evolution within a group could be the evolution of cetacean. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/whales/archaeoceti.htm

ob1knob

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.