Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Missing links...

  1. #1 Missing links... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6
    Do the missing links below shake the foundation of evolutionary theory?
    -Archeopteryx
    - Nebraska Man
    - Piltdown Man
    - Lucy
    Thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    No. Why would they. Archeopteryx and Lucy help validate evolutionary theory. Piltdown Man was a rather simplistic hoax. Nebraska Man was the invention of the popular press, not of scientists.
    Do you think these fossils 'shake the foundation of evolutionary theory' and if so, why?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I am still waiting for a reply Cheakrisna. Was the question too difficult?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    No. Why would they. Archeopteryx and Lucy help validate evolutionary theory. Piltdown Man was a rather simplistic hoax. Nebraska Man was the invention of the popular press, not of scientists.
    Do you think these fossils 'shake the foundation of evolutionary theory' and if so, why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I am still waiting for a reply Cheakrisna. Was the question too difficult?
    Sorry, I was busy and I've been reading alot too. To answer to your question, No, I don't think so because there are tons of transitional fossils found besides these couple ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6
    I think that it is relatively unusual to find intact fossils because of decay processes, disruption due to predators, geographic upheaval, etc. Therefore non-discovery of a link does not prove it never existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Filling the gap of a "missing link" only succeeds in creating two more gaps.

    The whole "missing link" thing is a fallacy of logical thinking if you ask me. It's a strawman that is perpetuated by the Creationists in their desire to seed doubt.

    sciborg is correct, fossils are extremely rare and we are lucky to have the fossil specimens we do. I'm always amazed at the amount of knowlege we extrapolate based simply on a mandible of a pleisiadapiform or some other extinct taxa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I'm always amazed at the amount of knowlege we extrapolate based simply on a mandible of a pleisiadapiform or some other extinct taxa.
    And because the conclusions are provisional, and are based on such scanty data, we should never be surprised if later findings lead to a different interpretation of fossil relationships. That is how science works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    ]

    The whole "missing link" thing is a fallacy of logical thinking if you ask me. It's a strawman that is perpetuated by the Creationists in their desire to seed doubt.
    Not sure the "missing link thing" qualifies as a fallacy in logic. The "missing link thing," basically suggests that there is no data available. When no data is available, one must consider all possibilities.

    In the case of missing fossil evidence one can list among the possibilities that such fossils exist and have not been found or that they do not exist and cannot be found. Neither claim can be substantiated in view of the lack of any verifying data.

    The fallacy here is unfairly claiming that of two reasonable conclusions, one conclusion is fallacious while the other is logical.

    First of all, creationists should not quibble with those elements of the theory of evolution which have been validly quantified and verified. Secondly, the people who think the missing links undermine some of the predictions of the theory of evolution do not based their doubts on the idea of "THE" missing link.

    There are thousands, no, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of missing links. We have found fossils from virtually every paleontological era wherein we know life existed. However, we have found no fossil evidence to prove linkages between species of animals. The fact that absolutely NONE, that is not one, of these missing links has been found, leans heavily toward the idea that there are none to be found. But all that means is that it is highly unlikely that no fossil evidence is there. It does nothing to disprove the theoretical linkages.

    Perhaps such linkages will be shown through genetic marking. If linkages are not found there, perhaps some other form of evidence will become, well, evident.

    SkinWalker is correct in suggesting that Creationists use this lack of evidence in an attempt to show that evolution is far from a given fact. It is the non-creationists who attempt to present evolution as axiomatic who are being devious and misleading, which is the definition of a fallacious.

    Please note that not all non-creationist treat evolution as axiomatic. Many agree that there remain many unfulfilled predictions within the theory of evolution. And many honest non-creationist agree that even if completely validated, the theory of evolution cannot and does not preclude the possibility that such was the process used by a creator.

    As to doubt, real science always doubts its conclusions and generally prefers readjustment over verification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    With much chagrin, I must consider that I misspoke in my previous post wherein I said. I am surprised nobody called me on it.

    There are thousands, no, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of missing links. We have found fossils from virtually every paleontological era wherein we know life existed. However, we have found no fossil evidence to prove linkages between species of animals. The fact that absolutely NONE, that is not one, of these missing links has been found, leans heavily toward the idea that there are none to be found. But all that means is that it is highly unlikely that no fossil evidence is there. It does nothing to disprove the theoretical linkages.
    Having momentarily misplaced my taxonomy, I was thinking genus and not species. There is considerable evidence within genera of both natural and manipulated creation of new species.

    For others who may have forgotton their taxonomy, living things are organized starting with Kingdoms of plant and animal and down through Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, Variety.

    My understanding of the theory of evolution is that one aspect suggests that several species will have a common relative at the genus level and that several genera will have a common relative at the family level and so on back to the point that even the kingdoms have some common ancestor that was either both plant and animal or neither.

    The lines between the lower levels of these division have often been matters of discussion, if not controversy. It has often been difficult for investigators to decide whether a specific organism was a variety of one species or a different species. There can also be disagreement on whether two similar organisms belong to the same species or if they are of separate genera.

    It was my original intent to point out we do not seem to be finding fossil evidence of linkages other than those at the species level. If such evidence exists, I would appreciate being pointed to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •