Why are the missing links in evolution still missing?

Question

Why are the missing links in evolution still missing?

Answer 1

The evolution of the horse is competely documented and has no missing links. It depends on the species. Also, certain times in geologic history are more conducive to fossil preservation than others. If conditions are poor then fossils will not be preserved and a whole species may not be found for that period of time and the changes to that species during that time are lost or if found are rare and hard to correlate. I suggest you read a book on this topic, lots of great books are out there some even have fabulous pictures that help illustrate some of the more abstract topics in evolution.

Answer 2

Why the pop-science reporters still insist on using this pointless, Victorian-era term escapes me; invariably, the next NYT article on whatever new hominid specimen will shout "Missing Link Found!" I wish I had a nickel for every ostensible "missing link" discovery reported in the popular media over the last fifty years. You will NOT encounter the term in palaeontology journals, you won't hear it used at professional meetings... save in a derisory sense, or with exasperation. "Missing link" is a sensational but meaningless construct.



As others here have pointed out, it is always possible to hypothesize one more potential transitional form in the fossil record of this or that taxon. Of COURSE the stratigraphic/fossil record is incomplete, but the truth is that there really are QUITE a few examples of evolution for which the fossil record is astoundingly consistent. Ashley's example of fossil horses is a great one, and for another- in the last few decades, we've seen quite dramatic advances in our understanding of whale evolution. Indeed, cetacean palaeontology illustrates the "predictive" aspects of the science most eloquently. In palaeontology, the devil really is in the details, and this is not the forum to discuss dentition and ankle-bone morphology and whatnot, nor am I a specialist in these things. Suffice it to say that, as hypothetical whale lineages developed on the strength of fossil finds, cetacean specialists speculated, years ago, that, eventually, specimens would be found in the succession (within deposits of predicted age) with quite specific intemediate morphologies, vestigial structures and so forth. Guess what? Such fossils HAVE been found- many key ones within the last couple of decades. With well-represented fossil specimens of Basilosaurus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and many others, scientists now have an astonishingly complete record of whale evolution from the ancestral (terrestrial) critters up to modern baleen whales. It is as comprehensive as you might want. I won't even bother discussing the relatively new science of molecular genetics, which only reinforces the evolutionary model.



Every time a geologist excavates and describes some fossil, he/she is potentially "falsifying" the evolutionary model. This is a critical point- if there were ancient whale bones associated stratigraphically with, say trilobites, or dinosaur bones jumbled up with human artifacts, this would be a real issue for our current understanding of the geologic record. But you know what? It DON'T happen. Out of the millions of fossil critters that have been identified and described, the general model of evolution has held up stoutly. All our Creationist chums have to do is find ONE credible (emphasis on "credible") instance where the fossils support their model rather than ours- it ought to be simple enough, what with all the millions of cubic miles of Flood Deposits they're always going on about.

Answer 3

Because the fossil record is by its nature incomplete.



Interestingly, some folks like to do this fallacy called "moving the goalposts" to defend their creation mythology based worldview from cognitive dissonance in the face of mounting empirical evidence, where every time a form is found intermediate between two others, the demand is placed for the two forms between these three forms.

Answer 4

It's because evolution theory is wrong and there are not just numerous missing links...whole chains are missing. This has been well known in paleontology for over 60 years yet hardly ever admitted in textbooks.



"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.



What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."



Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 [2][3]"



"Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...



One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.



The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, 'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46 [4]"



""Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson (anthropologist), 'The Water People,' Science Digest, Vol 90, May 1982, pg. 44) [24]



"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." — Gliedman, John. "Miracle Mutations." SCIENCE DIGEST 90 (February 1982): 90-96. [25][26]"



"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [31]



“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716."



http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-fosilrecord.htm



Geneticist Dr John Sanford talks on how genomes must degrade over time...not improve as Darwinian evolution asserts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

Answer 5

Math can't be proven until you provide me with every number between whole numbers.