you want more proof that evilution is a lie here you go

No transitionate fossils
Charles Darwin wrote himself "Looking not at any 1 time but at all time but at all time, if my theory be true, then numberless intermediate varieties linking closely together species of the same group, must assurely have existed yet none have been found.

there hasnt been enough time


By the laws of Darwins own theory we couldnt have had enough time to evolve to the extent we are today


there are many other problams with the theory that can not be explained away look it up

The same article as last time:

.

there has been some unexplainable "transitionate" fossils found, this was explained to me by a science teacher that had some kind of documentary on the subject, but look harder

I agree with the time issue, but I don't know anything about evolution or how much time it would require so I don't know enough to form an opinion on it, sometimes you just can't use what you think is "logic" in science

Not only are there transitionate fossils, as has been pointed out, but there are even transitionate species present today. The duck billed platypus is a classic example.

How many millions of years? The only why we havent had enough time is if you believe the creationists threoy that the world is about 6-7 thousand years old

yeah but there aint that many there aint as many as there should be and nobody can work out the time probl

that's exactly the kind of evolution that would make sense to me, if you want a connection between a bird and a reptile, how can you find a "monster" with a significant amount of bird and reptilian features, the only way would be reproduction, species A mates with species B, offspring has qualities of both, then those offspring mate with similar species and eventually your outcome is 2 completely different species over a period of millions of years, each mating product would be such a small significance, you couldn't find a "monster" with incredible difference

I repeat, what time problem?

Well, I didn't write that article, but I think the author means to say that creationists think that the Archaeopteryx is no missing link between reptiles and birds, but just a extinct bird. There was no transition according to the creationists.

I have a feeling this thread will also be closed.

So where did the Archaeopteryx come from?

if this thread is enough to get closed, then mine is certainly enough to get closed, "strange piece of rock"

but I hope neither one gets closed because I like discussions like these with many opinions being thrown around

I think shorty is offering himself as proof that evolution is a lie

You got to admit he has a point

Here's possible explanation for the lack of some transitionary fossils:

During massive climate changes, for this argument I'll use the end of the ice age, you have alot of animals that will be living in about the same enviroment as before because the migrate closer to the equator. Those animals won't really evolve much because they don't have that big of a change.

So, what happens to the animals that didn't migrate? Alot of them would be gathered around coastlines where some kind of vegitation grows. These animals would have evolved to some extent to brave the elements. Plant life would've existed here that could withstand a harsh and cold enviroment.

Where did these go? If you have all these giant ice caps and glaciers, the level of the oceans are going to drop by quite a significant amount. All you need is that one first abnormally warm summer to melt off the tips of the ice closer to the equator and the ocean would rise probably a couple feet. Mix this with the colder currents of water suddenly streaming into the ocean (and warmer, I suppose in ohter areas) that would creat a circulation and chain reaction that would start the warming trend.

This warming period would fill the oceans back up, and life forms would be forced to migrate back inland to back from the rising waters, and to find new food where the ice once was. Over this period you would have alot of extinction and alot of evolution.

All the while, the missing links would be destroyed by the sea, ground up into little bits, and never be found.

I'm up for comments on this idea. I'm sure, somewhere, someone else may have also come to this same conclusion, but I have never really done much research on this subject.

the missing links and all of that can not be found on this planet. many of the scifi stories have it more right than we now or want to know. extraterrestials are the missing link.

Well what i want to know is where our ancestors are...Because the Neanderthal has been proven to NOT be our ancestors.....so where the hell are our ancestors huh? dig me up a fossil...i want to see one.

DaRage is correct. The biggest gap is within human ancestory. Besides is it not possible that many animals are a product of evolution but that humans are not. This is annother possibility too.

Talk.Origins: Prominent Hominid Fossils.

ok... if we've been burying our dead, then small tribes would've done the same. At the time that our missing link is from, our ancestors would've been in areas that are A) now underwater, or B) In rainforests or maybe even C) Deserts. I doubt that the "missing link" part of our ancestry would've had very good mummification processes, if they were even concerned with that at all.

So, the evidence would get almost entirely chewed up. in A) The evidence, as I mentioned avove, would get washed out to sea and recycled. Even graves would become unburied and washed away.
B) You could possibly find the missing link here, but I doubt it. Still lots of water. Even the best mummifications couldn't survive more than a millennia here. The best, so far, is plastic injection. Even this would be worn away by different organisms and erosion.
C) This would be the most likely place to find an intact fossil, but with the constant erosion of a desert anything uncovered and undisturbed for long enough will be ultimitly sandblasted away here. Fortunatly, the same thing could also cover up and protect the bodies. I believe, though, that most of the seserts used to be rainforset, so not much would be lect for evidence.

Also just realized something from my post above:

It explains a great force to evolve. When you have a rapid evolution process, you will obviously have less evidence left from it, than when you have a stagnant evolution. Most of the evidence we've been able to find so far has been from evolutionary stanant points in history, where the earth didn't change much for long periods of time. Most evolution here was caused by simple actions of the food chain.

When the earth goes through great, rapid change, it is enevitable that it is going to eat up anything that hasn't had a chance to slowly be encased and protected over time. Not true in all cases, though. Think about what the ice age actually buries, although anything that is melted will continue a process of decay, so only in the most ancient pieces of ice would we obviously be able to find older evidence.