Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
if no fossil can be shown to be a link between two species.....?
how can it be argued that links are missing? how can evolution possibly be considered evidence that God is not needed for the universe to exist if nothing anywhere is a link? how can all of the extinct, dead end fossils be anything more than that?
i see. everything is a transitional form that doesn't transit. it came from nothing observable and it goes to nothing observable.
yet we are supposed to believe animals and plants evolve because of genetic similarities. isn't it more prudent to say they are similar in basics than to say one came from another? sorry. genetic similarities don't cut it either as evidence. the use of red paint in many paintings does not prove one painting came from another, nor do they necessarily have any connection except a common maker of that particular red paint.
the illustration of the four winged bird is awesome. i don't doubt it is a fossil. it is only another dead end. it evolved from nothing observable and became nothing observable.
why is it that i apply the requirement that evolution be observable while the atheist can dismiss the need for observation and claim that similarities serve as proof? isn't it the atheist who claims to have the high ground of science?
no, Hee Jun, i have not directed any comments to you individually. your position is more carefully considered than most. i do not agree that evolution is the more likely occurrence, but you appear to be more considerate of all information before making a blind determination.
"When one thing is followed by another similar thing, it makes more sense to assume that the former partially caused the latter than that they are both completely arbitrary with respect to each other.".....the fact that both are keyboards has no bearing as to whether or not one came from the other. when the key pattern is different on each it is NOT more sensible that one partially caused the other. in your illustration the time restraint dictates that in all likelihood it is the same keyboard. this is very poor logic. you seek cause and effect where there is no need to establish it. and that is my point. there is no demonstrated relationship between different fossil species past, present or future. it can not be demonstrated yet science declares the relationship to be there. didn't Darwin determine that if the links between species could not be found the theory is doomed? there is an effort to keep a failed theory alive. not only are there no missing links.....the fossils we do have a
the forms between species would be transitions from one to the other. there are no transitions demonstrated. if it can not be demonstrated the fossil record serves as no evidence of it ever happening and people have been citing failed evidence for many decades. i do not seek evidence of transition between coexisting species. i am not that dumb.
fossils are extremely rare when arguing to justify the lack of evidence between species. when confronting believers in a Creator the fossil evidence is overly abundant in support of evolution. this is too convenient. it can't be both ways.
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/soft-ti...
why in the world would any scientist break a fossil and drag it through pond scum? this refutes the finding of hemes and globin belonging to a dinosaur, but it is still maintained that finding similarities between this dinosaur bone and the ostrich are evidence of evolution. does no one else see the absurdity? pond scum definitely polluted but ostrich remains did not. the fossil is too old to contain anything from the fossil except the evidence that supports evolution from dino to bird. heme and globin would have disputed the age of the fossil. a bullet dodged. but look what we found about the ostrich from similar tissues. maybe logic does fail me. i would think that whether it was hemoglobin or any other biological structure, finding it in a fossil would debunk the great amount of time afforded for evolution to take place.
"Most transitions within a given population diverging from an ancestral population will be fleeting."
can you demonstrate one of these fleeting transitions? are there any examples of it happening during the last thousand years or so? ten thousand years or so? a ten thousand year old fossil is more likely to bear tissue that demonstrates a modern specie departure from an ancestral population. even with this relatively short span of time there is no evidence of evolutionary change. the best you can hope for is a change in appearance and function of a single specie, not a leap from one specie to another, and without this leap there is no evidence of the lack of need for a Creator. there is no evidence of a point of divergence either. all we have is complete extinction or single specie continuance.
10 Answers
- Kathy MillerLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
2011 years out of the dark ages, and like every other generation, we know it all. Even if we could know, we could not understand it all. It is fun to try, but lets admit it none of us know all that much...we are just vain, and God laughs...at our wisdom. Whether that intelligent design is life itself, and God is life itself, then life itself laughs at us. In joy, of course, for that is what we all want from life. .Professor Davies estimates that if there were no inherent guiding intelligent force,and cosmic evolution were governed only by chance of mechanical laws, the time required to achieve the level of order we now meet in the universe purely by random processes is of the order of 10 to the 10th power to the 80th power, years, inconceivable longer than the current age of the universe.. Laszlo observes, serendipity of this magnitude strains credibilty,and concludes, must we then face the possibility that the universe we witness ts a result of purposeful design by an omnipotent master builder. Paul Davies, is a PHD, and well known author and professor of mathematical physics, who wrote Evidence of Purpose: Scientist Discover the Creator, and Ervin Laszlo is a systems theorist. Even Darwin admitted if one thing could be found wrong in his theory the whole thing should be given up...new forms of life appear suddenly, they are created....maybe we did it before we came here and don't remember. They say the gods were very creative in the variety of life...just look at all the pretty types of flowers, all the gods competing, and Jesus said, ye are all gods. Just some things to think about, I claim no authority on knowledge!
- green meklarLv 71 decade ago
Can you propose a method for determining precisely whether one particular fossil represents a descendant species from one particular other fossil and an ancestor species for some particular third fossil? What property of a fossil establishes that link? In what way are you suggesting that the fossil record should appear different assuming that evolutionary theory is accurate?
In any case, I could equally make the argument that no real connection can EVER be known for certain. Can you show definitively that there is a connection between there being a keyboard in front of you 15 seconds ago and there being a keyboard in front of you now? No. All you have are two separate snapshots in time (similar to those provided by the fossil record) in which there happened to be a keyboard there. You have no way to demonstrate for sure that these two snapshots are related.
However, you (and everyone else) finds it very useful to assume that the snapshots are related. When one thing is followed by another similar thing, it makes more sense to assume that the former partially caused the latter than that they are both completely arbitrary with respect to each other. Now what is so difficult about applying that same principle to the fossil record? Why the double standard?
- jacob_vLv 51 decade ago
It isn't argued that links are missing except by people who don't understand evolution. For one thing evolution is a process which effects populations over considerable time. Most transitions within a given population diverging from an ancestral population will be fleeting. Second of all fossilization is a process which only occurs under very specific circumstances. Fossils themselves are actually extremely rare. On top of that even of those few dead organisms whose remains have fossilized the majority either have not been found yet, have been destroyed by erosion or the actions of animals (including man), or have not been exposed yet.
- 1 decade ago
links exist in every living and dead species, there are no missing links because each organism that has ever existed is just an intermediate form from it's past and it's uncertain future (whatever adaptions it may take on through natural selection). The mere fact that an organism exists makes it a link between whatever came before it and what it may become.
Even if we had no fossils to support evolution, Evolution by natural selection would still exist.
Evolution FTW
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- neil sLv 71 decade ago
1) No fossils are needed at all to say evolution is a fact. The DNA evidence alone is enough.
2) Every single organism is a transitional form. There is no such thing as a "missing link."
3) Evolution makes no claim about how the universe or life got here, only about how existing life changes.
- CuteAngelLv 61 decade ago
i agree with you that there are multiple ways to interpret genetic similarity. Scientists, especially atheistic scientists decide this shows evolution, but you can always interpret this as being similar because they are similar.
I think in the end what it comes down to is: which is more believable, evolution or the accounts of Genesis? And I have to say, Genesis sounds like a fairytale. I'm sorry, but that's just how it sounds to me. I mean, different religions have different "Genesis" right? (i.e. each religion has its own interpretation of how the world begins). So why should I trust Bible's Genesis? Whereas in science, there is only ONE evolution. There's no different scientific theories across the world. All scientists across the world agree on evolution. See the difference?
@added: is that last comment for me? because I'm not saying that similarities serve as definite proof. I'm claiming that the similarities SUGGEST evolution, but obviously do not serve as definite proof. But neither does the Bible in terms of proof for Genesis, because it doesn't prove that what it claims is correct compared to other religious texts. Like I've said above, in the end, it comes down to which one is more LIKELY to be the truth.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
There are hundreds of intermediate fossils!
How many more would you need to believe in evolution?
Even if there were trillions of them, creationists would still be in denial.
- 1 decade ago
if creationism were true, we'd see fossils of modern animals at the same layer as now-extinct animals.
We don't, so we can take Creationism off of the Possibly True list.
Source(s): --science and stuff
