Where are the missing links in evolution?

Question

I've studied the theory of evolution for years. I've heard about it in school. I have read some books and watched a few documentaries about it.

My question is: if new species come from another species, where are the missing links? I looked online, and all I saw was basically cartoon pictures of missing links. This tells me right away that there isn't actually physical missing links to be shown in these pictures.

I agree with the idea that a population may accumulate mutations and get genetically different over time, only able to breed among themselves because of their acquired genetics, what I question is bacteria all the way to man and where all the missing links are.

Can someone please enlighten me? Are the supposed missing links at museums true missing links, or do they just think some dead unknown fossil skeleton is a missing link to a similar species?

Answer 1

The term "missing link" is an unscientific red herring.



All reputable scientists avoid that term "missing link" as much as possible because it makes no sense *logically*.



If we have a human species H, that we think evolved from ancestral species A. Somebody who rejects evolution will say "I don't accept this until you can show me the the missing link between A and H." Well, if we keep scrounging and find another species D with characteristics midway between A and H, then they say "I don't accept this unless you show me the 'missing link' between A and D, and another 'missing link' between D and H. So they feel smug that they have doubled the difficulty of the challenge. So then we find more fossils C and F ... and they just step up the challenge ... "now there are *four* 'missing links'!" And so on.



In other words, the 'missing link' concept means that the *more* evidence we find, the *less* convinced the anti-evolutionists are!



That is why it is illogical and anti-scientific. It is playing games. It is NOT doing science!





Unfortunately, a lot of science journals and science documentaries fall into the trap. Headline your newspaper article, or advertise your TV documentary with the title "new transitional fossil found!" and everybody just shrugs and watches the rerun of 'Friends.' But title it "Missing Link Found!" and everybody's fascinated! It is infuriating!





>"I agree with the idea that a population may accumulate mutations and get genetically different over time, only able to breed among themselves because of their acquired genetics, what I question is bacteria all the way to man and where all the missing links are."



The first part of your sentence indicates that you understand one of the key concepts of evolution ... *speciation*. The fact that species will *branch* when they become isolated.



The reason this is KEY, is that all of life exhibits a massive *branching* hierarchy. That is precisely why we can organize species in to Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. This pattern ... at all levels ... is *explained* by the concept of *branching* from common ancestors.



That this branching hierarchy is crystal clear in the common DNA between any two branches just makes this story all the more compelling.



The concept of 'missing links' is entirely an artifact of the FOSSIL RECORD ... but it completely misses the point that we don't need *ANY* fossils to be able to see the tell-tale signs of evolution. If not a single fossil had ever been found, the DNA evidence ALONE is a slam-dunk for evolution!



But the fossils we *have* found are absolutely consistent with the story told by DNA. For example, if we were to start finding fossil evidence that bats evolved from birds, this would completely contradict the DNA evidence that bats evolved from rodent mammals. THAT would be a problem for evolution theory! But the fossil evidence we find is consistent that bats and birds are completely different branches of evolution, which is absolutely consistent with the DNA evidence!



>"Are the supposed missing links at museums true missing links, ..."



Well, obviously, if they're in museums, then they're not "missing"!



>"... or do they just think some dead unknown fossil skeleton is a missing link to a similar species?"



That's closer to the correct idea. Calling it 'missing' refers to the fact that it is a fossil that has not-yet-been discovered. The problem is when we actually discover a fossil, and all the newspapers and TV shows shout "missing link found!" ... that the Creationists come out of the woodwork and say "Oh, yeah! What about the missing link between this new species and its supposed ancestors ... and the other 'missing link' between it and its supposed descendants?"



It is an empty, bogus argument. Don't be fooled by it.

Answer 2

> "if new species come from another species, where are the missing links?"



All over the place.

Almost all major transitions in evolution (invertebrate to vertebrate; fish to amphibian; amphibian to reptile; reptile to bird; reptile to mammal) have extensive "transitional fossils" mapping-out the changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



One final thing to point-out, however, is that the "transitional fossil" argument is actually unanswerable.

If there is an organism alive today (Species C), and a fossil species from two million years ago (Species A), then science might suggest, based on anatomical similarity, that C evolved from A.

Creationists will then insist we find a transitional species between the two. Now, fossilisation is a rare event - but let's say we get lucky, and find another organism (Species B) from 1 million years ago, which is exactly anatomically halfway between A and C; all we've done is double our problems, because Creationists can now insist we find two more fossils, between A and B and between B and C.



> "I looked online, and all I saw was basically cartoon pictures of missing links. This tells me right away that there isn't actually physical missing links to be shown in these pictures.

Are the supposed missing links at museums true missing links, or do they just think some dead unknown fossil skeleton is a missing link to a similar species?"



If the cartoon is of an organism with a *name* (like Tiktaalik or Proterogyrinus), then it is of an actual species that has been found.

The cartoons in these cases are "artists impressions" of what the organism might have looked like; exactly the same as pictures of dinosaurs. We know dinosaurs existed, but our pictures of them are necessarily educated guesses: we don't know what colour of skin T. rex had, after all, we only know it's basic anatomy.

Answer 3

Transient spices (missing links) evolve quite fast and are not for too long present on earth. On the other hand fossils are quite hard to form and preserve. So many conditions need to be met. Take into account that dinosaurs had rule the earth for so long, but there are only few complete fossil skeletons. The rest is the scientist imagination.

Answer 4

Only about 1 bone in a billion is fossilized.



And then they have to be found.

Answer 5

Transitional species:

http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/archaeopteryx.jpg

http://geoweek.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tiktaalik1.jpg

http://www.sciencecentric.com/images/news/lucy_bones_300_588.jpg



We have hundreds. No cartoons, just bones. However, unless you are an expert in vertebrate anatomy, these mean very little, so you will find an artist's rendition instead of a picture of bones.

Answer 6

simply there isn't, because the evolution theory, is not practically scientific, no real evidence has never been provided.

just this is an idea made sense for science community, not all the science community as well in a recent survey among scientist revealed there is a growing trend of rejecting the whole theory just like hundreds of theories that have been believed and then denied,