Please explain to me how you can tell a "missing" link from a never existed link? I'd appreciate data on that.
A "missing link" has features of both of two different taxonomic divisions. I have no idea what you mean by a "never existed link."
Let's look at a couple of fossils, ambulocetus and tiktaalik, where the evolutionary thinking is represented, as with all their "transitional" fossils.
First ambulocetus. We are told that this small, horned and hooved animal turned into a great whale! Wow. There must be so much ev-i-dence for that. Please give me a shred of evidence that it ever produced a single descendant significantly different from itself in anyway. Or, is all such evidence primarily composed of....missing...."links"?
All descendants are different unless they are clones. We do not know if Ambulocetus gave rise to a more whale-like species or not. It is transitional because it has feature of whales that are
derived and found only in whales. If it didn't give rise to a more whale-like species, then a similar species most likely did so. The fossil record is incomplete, so in most cases we see only parts of the branches of the tree or bush of life.
Pllease don't point me to this and that of a dozen or so other "whale transition" fossils and tell me ambulocetus turned into them. There's no ev-i-dence for that. They don't even look alike. Or if there is evidence, show what it is. Show any evidence that those other supposed transitions had a single descendant significantly different form themselves in any way or were related to one another. What observable data is there to show that ambulocetus isn't just what it looks like, a dead end, extinct, lifeform?
They do look alike. They have features in common with other whales that are also transitional. Obviously they are not identical, or they wouldn't be separate species.
It is possible that Ambulocetus was a dead end.. we do not know. It is still transitional because it has features required of it. It is in a sense representative of what the early ancestor most likely looked like.
Oh, but you will cite "similar homology" no doubt, in this case because ambulocetus had some minor similarity in its inner ears to whales. Uh, sorry, that's the use of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy, one of the many logical fallacies evolution is built on, and its favorite one. Science cannot be illogical. That means you can't prop up a theory with logical fallacies and call it evidence.
What logical fallacy? There are multiple lines of evidence that lead to the conclusion that whales evolved from tererstrial even-toed ungulates. Atavisms, embryology, genetics, morphlogy and the fossil record all lead to this one conclusion. The fossil record does not tell us anything in isolation.
Doilphns and sharks have similar homology, so do snakes and worms. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales have sonar - gee, that's even more of a similarity than seen in the inner ear structures of ambulocetus and whales. People and cockatoos dance to music. Countless other similarities can be found in life forms that even evolutionist don't try to claim are related. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
All species are indeed related through genetic descent, but you are engaging in some fallacies here:
1. Yes, dolphins and sharks have simliar body shapes, and general morphological homologies. This is because they have similar lifestyles, and are both vertebrate animals. However, sharks are fish and whales are mammals. A big difference, for example, is that whale flukes are horizontal, and shark tails are verticle.
2. Snakes and worms are quite far apart compared to dolphins and sharks. Just being long and legless does not constitute homology. Worms are not vertebrates like snakes are.
3. Bats, bees and birds all fly, yes. But their wings and the way they fly are very different. Bats and birds are both vertebrates, so have more homology than either do to bees. However, the wings of bats and birds are still quite different.
4. The sonar of whales and bats are also quite different.
I think you mean "similarity does not imply relatedness." That may be true, but it is the pattern of similarity... the nested hierarchy of life... that provides the inference for common descent.
Now onto Tiktaalik. At least one world famous evolutionary evangelist has proudly called Tik "As good as it gets for a transitional form." I agree with that statement! If you check out some evolution sites you will see Tik being called a "Fishapod" as we are being led to believe it turned into a tetrapod, a 4 legged creature. But....but....it looks practically identical to other lobe finned fish found today.
It does not look like modern lobe-finned fish. It has a neck, and it has hands.
And...and...some decades ago peer reviews were raving about Coelacanth, another lobe finned fish, and saying it was turning into a tetrapod and was evidence for evolution Then they found some live Coelacanths. You can see the pretty blue....fish period....swimming around on Youtube. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation/similar homology argument with him, too, of course.
Reference please. Yes, there are Coelacanths today, though they are different species than the ones found in the fossil record. While lobe-finned fish are, as a group, ancestral to fishapods like Tiktaalik, Coelacanths are not of the subset that were directly ancestral.
Back to Tiktaalik. Check out a site with ictheyologists and you will hear it being described as a fish....a lobe finned....fish. Period. Where is the evidence it ever turned into something else? Nowhere of course.
Whether you call it a fish or a tetrapod is entirely subjective... that is why it is called a tranistional, or a "fishapod" by many. You can draw the line after Tiktaalik or before Tiktaalik.. again, that is what we expect from a tranitional species. It was a lobe-finned fish
with a neck and legs. That is why it is a transitional.
Even worse for you, Tiktaalik is just one of many fishapod transitionals found in the fossil record, all from the Denovian Period.
Devonian Times - Recent Findings
What is your explanation for that? Why aren't they found with trilobites? Why aren't they found with more modern tetrapods from the same environment, like frogs and salamanders? Where are your answers?
Bye!
