How many missing links are there in Darwin's Evolution theory?
494559
What excatly do you mean by "missing link"? The answer will be either none or an infinite number depending on what you mean
977079
huh, yeah im not a creationist either, but i dont think that you can fully understand the stuff without an in depth study of scientific material. \n\nthere is a book called darwins black box by michael behe.  he doesnt call himself a creationist, hes a biochemist that after looking at plenty of evidence has alot of questions and decided to write a book. it basically is challenging evolution. \n\nfrom what i understand the missing links (transitional species) are not there in the fossil record.  thats why you have guys that come up with the punct eq theory, etc.  there are some that say they have found a couple missing links here and there, but it doesnt explain the massive amount of life that supposedly changes from one thing to another. \n\nanother guy is sennapathy (sp.), he is a south asia indian guy that has the same questions and different conclusions.  hes a genetic scientist.\n\ngranted there are examples of mutations, like in viruses and the like, that one could point to, but the data for large scale biology is still sketchy
883860
I have been studying Science for the last 40 years and as for the comments made above by my colleague Kuraimizu, I like to point out that in six paragraphs and several hundred words, he has managed to miss the truth completely. What he says is not worthy of someone who has studied science for six months. So, safely ignoring his noises, I should point out that evolution is not a hotly debated subject among scientists – it’s accepted as fact to the point where it really needs no support. Evolutionary biologists and other researchers that investigate evolution do form a community but there is no single website where we all gather to boost each other up. \n\nThere are hundreds of sites that discuss evolution, most are university or college sites that serve their students, a few seek to educate the public, and some are bogus.  If I were looking for honest information, I would avoid blogs and discussion forums and stick to the .edu and .org websites that state their intention without trying to be subversive.  The following short list contains a few sites that are representative:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\nhttp://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/\nhttp://explore-evolution.unl.edu/
406068
There are many branches of evolutionary thought and many theories that add to it.\n\nEvolutionary psychology looks at the reason we think as stemming from our evolutionary history.  \n\nMemetics looks at the evolution of thought and ideas.\n\nNatural selection is a correlary to evolution... it explains some of the reasons for how genetic drift occurs.\n\nThere are also theories that tie parasites and also viruses to mutation, thereby affecting genetic code and natural selection.
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
983838
Darwin never "withdrew" his theory, nice try.\n\nYou're right there were lots of storms and meteorites.  For all we know, life needed a couple of tries to get started.\n\nJust the fact that you are asking whether we came from monkeys or from goo, shows that you either have NO idea what evolution is about or are just trying to get a rise out of people.  You bore me.
550523
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
1042642
i'm really starting to believe that he's the missing link in evolution, and he's hiding in plain sight. think about it, he kinda looks like a monkey, he doesnt have the same capacity for speech as normal humans, he's easily lead around by his masters (cheney, rove)..... he's the step between caveman and modern man, he's the proof of evolution!
433812
You're assuming that there is only one way of surviving. Our ancestral ape, from whom both humans and modern apes have descended (contrary to popular belif, we did not descend from the modern apes - we just have the same great-great-grandparents :-)) Now, due to variation, this ancestral species developed into a number of different beasts - some succesful, some not. What we see now as chimps and humans are merely the current state of evolution of two of these branches, both succesful, and both with a long history of extinct intermediate forms connecting them to their ancestor.\n\nOh, and by the way -- the term "the missing link" is a misnomer. It implies that we have not found any solid evidence that humans are evolutionarily tied to the apes. We have dozens of intermediate forms showing this pathway, so there are no links missing. (Of course, what you sometimes hear is that there is no intermediate form between, say, Australopithecus Robustus and Austrolopithecus Boisei and claim that there is a missing link there. But then say that somebody found the fossil connecting the two species. Would that mean that the missing link proponents would stop asking for one? No! Now, we have TWO new missing links - one to link Robustus to the new species, AND one to link the new species to Boisei! Evolution is a continuum, and fossilization is a sporadic and rather 'selective' process, so there will always be something missing from the fossil record. To be intellectually honest, however, you need to not only focus on the gaps, but on the picture the actual fossils paint.)
1011281
There is really not enough evidence to support evolution. Actually evolution is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:\n\n* Cells and DNA\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of researc
477782
Genetics and evolution.
82819
For those who said Darwin or Russell, sorry. Both fail. Not only did Lamarck's theory of evolution predate both in modern times but the first theory of evolution was proposed around 2500 years earlier than any of them.\n\nThe first theory of evolution that I know of was proposed by Empedocles around 450BC. \n\nFollow the second link for a full verbatim quote of the theory as it was originally written down.\n\n\nCaveat. I don't claim this is the first theory of evolution. It is just the earliest that I am aware of. It is certainly much earlier than Darwin or Wallace.
434237
MISSING LINKS: \n\nAll of the "missing links" on this page are examples of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and erroneous theme of the evolutionary science community. The only thing missing from their studies was thorough research.\n\n• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.\n\n• PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.\n\n• NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole\nimaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.\n\n• JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.\n\n• PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.\n\n• LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.\nLucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.\n\n• LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.\n\n• KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.\n\n• ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.\n\nChinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found anoth
183805
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theoty of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n• Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n• "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
653816
Evolution is a theory.
251702
Genetics. And Darwins theory.