The missing link

[JohnR7]

I was wonder, if someone actually found the missing link, if they dug it up somewhere. How much do you think it would be worth? For example like Lucy, what do they sell her for? How much of a profit do they make?

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

I was wonder, if someone actually found the missing link, if they dug it up somewhere. How much do you think it would be worth? For example like Lucy, what do they sell her for? How much of a profit do they make?

Plenty of "missing links" have been found, hence they're no longer termed "missing" links.

And they're pretty much priceless.

 

[jjdoe]

First of all, missing link is generally relayed as societal construct rather then a biological or scientific construct. Relaying the societal construct to science we know that when connecting earlier species to the later (newly evolved) species in which case connects two seperate species to a common ancestor. When looking at transitional fossils we search for common features. For instance, in the transition from bony fish to amphibians Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) carried with characteristics of the lungfish and early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. Also, we have evidence of a dinosaur bird transitions (early avian fossils)

http://www.christianforums.com/t62961-dino-bird-transitions.html
This would be considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The key concept here is transitional forms and fulfilling are predictions for what we think we will find and have found. Hope that answers your questions

 

[jjdoe]

For example like Lucy, what do they sell her for? How much of a profit do they make?

Certainly not as much as your fossil will make in 3.18 million years.

 

[Beloved Child]

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis

Plenty of "missing links" have been found, hence they're no longer termed "missing" links.

And they're pretty much priceless.

Oh really?? I would die to see those missing links! Why have creationists not been informed about that? Or the rest of the world out there? Why is it still known that there is NO missing link?
Some weeks ago I saw an interesting documentary about the Archaeoraptor skeleton, that dinosaur-bird who shows the transitional form from one species to another. They found out that it's fabricated! The front part and the back part do not match at all.
And this info might be interesting. As for me, I'm no bird specialist, I don't know much about the anatomy of birds, but I frankly say that I trust this man to know what he does and says. He talks about more or less important detail that evolutionists simply seem to ignore. As always.
"Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopedic book on living and fossil birds (Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2nd Ed.,1999)
He pointed out much evidence against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. Also, dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds."

Why are such details not considered?

And it's not only that! What about the giraffe? How did it evolve? Or the wale fish or dolphins. They live in the water, but are mammals; they have lungs. Where did they evolve from?

 

[notto]

I would think that most of these finds are done with grant money and the anthropologists get paid either way. Of course, finding something will lead to more grant money, but it really isn't a profit business. More abundant fossils (with cooler teeth and claws) would be a much more profitable business and the fossil trade for profit usually deals in things that are easy to find and are abundant.

 

[notto]

Why are such details not considered?

Because your sources are probably only telling you half the story. The comment about the dating of birds is simply a purposeful misrepresentation of what is done and known. That should lead you to question the rest of the claims.

Suggesting that we haven't found true fossils of birds with teeth or dinosaurs with feathers would be a grand lie. If that is what your source is trying to suggest, you should read a different source. Your source is not trying to inform you, but pursuade you by only showing you pieces of the puzzle and ignoring the rest. Basically, your source doesn't consider the details.

It is interesting that Feduccia would write an article about the birdlike characteristics of a non bird if what your source suggests is true. Perhaps they are taking him out of context? If your source is suggesting that Feduccia doesn't think birds evolved, then again, it would be misleading. He does - he just disagrees with others about what type of critter they evolved from.

[size=-1]Feduccia, A., and R. Wild. 1993. Birdlike characters in the Triassic archosaur Megalancosaurus. Naturwissenschaften 80: 564-566. (with cover painting by John P. O'Neill).[/size]

 

[Ozymandius]

Why have creationists not been informed about that?

He's right, that is unusual!!!! The first thing scientists usually do when they make a grounbreaking discovery is prostrate themselves in front of superstitious backwards cultists and say "here, now please beleive us! please!"

The term missing link is misleading. We have hundreds of "links" well dated and preserved.

 

[Jet Black]

Oh really?? I would die to see those missing links! Why have creationists not been informed about that? Or the rest of the world out there? Why is it still known that there is NO missing link?

because if it has been found, it isn't a missing link anymore. I implore you to use the term "transitional form" or "intermediate form" since those terms are far more accurate and useful, and many intermediate forms have been found. go to talkorigins.com for a look.

Some weeks ago I saw an interesting documentary about the Archaeoraptor skeleton, that dinosaur-bird who shows the transitional form from one species to another. They found out that it's fabricated! The front part and the back part do not match at all.

yes, but the two parts turned out to be from organisms that had never been found before. But this is besides the point, you focus on instances like this, but why don'T you seem to pay any attention at all to the actual verified fossils?

Why are such details not considered?

principally because the evidence does not support his rather extreme ideas. why don't you pay any attention to all of the scientists who disagree with him, and there are very many more of them.

And it's not only that! What about the giraffe? How did it evolve? Or the wale fish or dolphins. They live in the water, but are mammals; they have lungs. Where did they evolve from?

go to talkorigins and have a look. there are many transitionals of some of these, particularly the cetacean whale transitional series.

 

[Jet Black]

He's right, that is unusual!!!! The first thing scientists usually do when they make a grounbreaking discovery is prostrate themselves in front of superstitious backwards cultists and say "here, now please beleive us! please!"

no need to be so harsh. The thing is the creationists have been shown these fossils but they invariably deny them for what they are. take a look at this for example:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp

see, they recognise the existance of the fossil, but then try to class it as a "true bird". the problem is that their entire claim is nonsensical for a number of reasons I will herewith outline:

Archie is clearly not a true bird:

1. the premaxilla and the maxilla are not horn covered like they are in birds!
2. the vertebra in the trunk region are free, in birds they are fused!
3. Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section. not seen in birds!
4. neck attaches to the skull from the rear, not the bottom as in birds!
5. Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
6. Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian...

so there are 6 contradictions to their claim.

Furthermore, there is no sense in trying to claim that Archie is "a true bird"
-
remember that there is not a "bird kind" (as can be evidenced in the bible), but there are lots of kinds, such as perhaps, "ostrich kind", "dove kind" and "hummingbird kind" .
Since there is no ancestral relationship between the different birds each kind is completely arbitrary, so why shouldn't there be a kind that isn't quite reptillian and isn't quite Ave in it's characteristics?
There is absolutely no reason that God should force everything into a nested hierarchy in the way that evolution demands, so why even assume that he did?
This makes the AIG claim that Archie is a true bird completely meaningless in the evolution creation debate - what they need to show is that Archie does not fit a pattern that is in any kind of agreement with evolutionary predictions and they dismally fail to do so.

 

[Hydra009]

Oh really?? I would die to see those missing links! Why have creationists not been informed about that?

That's only the tip of the iceberg. There are a LOT of things creationists have not been informed about or misinformed about.

 

[Sarcopt]

Oh really?? I would die to see those missing links! Why have creationists not been informed about that?

Well, let's see... how much effort have you spent to inform yourself?

Or the rest of the world out there? Why is it still known that there is NO missing link?
Some weeks ago I saw an interesting documentary about the Archaeoraptor skeleton, that dinosaur-bird who shows the transitional form from one species to another. They found out that it's fabricated! The front part and the back part do not match at all.

I love this canard. Creationists love to harp on the old Archaeoraptor story, but only tell half of it. Yes, it was a composite: half bird, half dinosaur. The part that creationists leave out is the all-so-important details about how we found out it was a composite. Most importantly, it was revealed by scientists who are all evolutionists -- creationists played no role. It was discovered when the counterpart slab to the hind section was found to have a dinosaur body, not a bird body, attached to it.

Here's the kicker: the dinosaur has feathers. (Xu et al. 2000. Nature 408, 705-708)

And this info might be interesting. As for me, I'm no bird specialist, I don't know much about the anatomy of birds, but I frankly say that I trust this man to know what he does and says.

*snicker, snicker*

He talks about more or less important detail that evolutionists simply seem to ignore. As always.
"Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopedic book on living and fossil birds (Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2nd Ed.,1999)
He pointed out much evidence against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. Also, dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds."

Why are such details not considered?

You're aware that Feduccia is an evolutionist? Did you look at the title of his book The Origin and Evolution of Birds? You're also aware that he agrees that Archaeopteryx is, in fact, transitional between reptiles and birds, if not between between dinosaurs and birds. Feduccia opposes the latter case, which he is allowed to do. However, the overwhelming number of palaeontologists -- who also know what they're talking about -- totally disagree with his interpretations.

Or the wale fish or dolphins. They live in the water, but are mammals; they have lungs. Where did they evolve from?

I think the question should be put to you: why are whales mammals? Very simple question, if your theory has any predictive power at all, you should be able to tell us why God needed to make whales with all the unique characters of the Mammalia. Why didn't he use a combination of fish and mammal and, say, echinoderm characters?

 

[Sarcopt]

I was wonder, if someone actually found the missing link, if they dug it up somewhere.

So, you'd be satisfied with just one, would you? You're the most generous creationist I've ever encountered. Yes, generally a couple shards of glass and an empty window pane are enough to satisfy most people that the window was broken. However, most creationists want you to collect every piece and re-build the window in order to prove that it happened.

How much do you think it would be worth? For example like Lucy, what do they sell her for? How much of a profit do they make?

Fossils that belong to museums generally have no price. It's quite simple: you can't buy them. The only way to determine the price of a fossil would be to put it up for auction.

As for the profit, who are you talking about? Ownership of fossils varies from place to place. In the U.S., they belong to the landowner. In Canada, it's "finders-keepers", except in certain provinces where fossils belong to the crown. In China, all fossils belong to the state. There is a market for fossils, and it can be somewhat lucrative. However, it is a considerable point of friction for most scientists.

Generally speaking, scientists are interested in collecting fossils and having them deposited in publicly-funded bodies (musems, usually). There, researchers and the interested public can access the fossils like books in a library. Private collectors, however, can be a considerable stopping block, as scientifically valuable specimens may end up on the mantle shelf of a well-to-do collector. Here, they cannot be researched or enjoyed by the public.

This is an important point. Most journals will not allow you to publish work on fossils that aren't deposited in public collections. This is because paleontological work is much more open that creationists would have you believe. Each specimen has a given catalogue and institutional number where you can access it. Ask the curatorial staff of that institution nicely, and they'll let you see the specimen. They'll even give you table space and a microscope to examine it if you wish. If you don't believe me, try it.

This is a slight digression from the topic, but it underscores why fossils can't be given a dollar value. Nor should they be. They are unique historical documents and the information they provide belongs to the world, not one single individual.

 

[Split Rock]

Archaeoraptor liaoningensis
Oh really?? I would die to see those missing links! Why have creationists not been informed about that? Or the rest of the world out there? Why is it still known that there is NO missing link?

Creationists Have been informed, they just refuse to acknowledge them. Thus, Duane Gish claims that Archaeopteryx is "just a bird," because it has feathers and wings, despite the fact that the skeleton looks more like a small theropod dinosaur than a modern bird. He never tells his minions that though... Why do you think that is?

Also, dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds."

This only means that these feathered (and yes they are) dinos are not ancestors of Archaeopteryx, but instead are cousins. If we found a feathered dino that predates Archaeopteryx, would you then accept it as a transitional? I didn't think so.

And it's not only that! What about the giraffe? How did it evolve? Or the wale fish or dolphins. They live in the water, but are mammals; they have lungs. Where did they evolve from?

Whales evolved from terrestrial ungulates, and are closely related to hippos and cows. We actually have a very good fossil record of whale transitionals, including some with small rear legs... just as predicted by evolutionary theory.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

 

[cze_026]

Exactly what is the value of tossing valuable information at these two. They have already proven that they are only good at assuming the Gish position.

Hands over ears and yelling "La La La . . ." at the top of their lungs.

It is frustrating to go over the same ground over and over again, with those who will not see.

Cze

 

[DGE Project]

I see bpoele here are still taking the dioasuar-bird fairyale seriously.

Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, equated the belief that birds are descended from dinosaurs to “…one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age — the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.” – Open Letter to National Geographic Society, 1999
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4159.asp

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I see bpoele here are still taking the dioasuar-bird fairyale seriously.

Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, equated the belief that birds are descended from dinosaurs to “…one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age — the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.” – Open Letter to National Geographic Society, 1999
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4159.asp

I'm not even going to research the quote. I'll just say that if one guy says it, I'm convinced... the tens of thousands who disagree with him must be wrong.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

I'm not even going to research the quote. I'll just say that if one guy says it, I'm convinced... the tens of thousands who disagree with him must be wrong.

I did a bit of searching on google.

The entire problem started when NatGeo used a fossil from China which turned out to be a combination of two separate animals, a micoraptor, and a bird.
The fossil was referred to as 'Archeoraptor', and there was only one example of it.
Under pressure, NatGeo commissioned an investigation into the legitimacy of the fossil, and found it to be a fraud.

This does not, of course, affect the legitimacy of Archaeopteryx fossils.[font=&quot] [/font]

 

[Cirbryn]

I see bpoele here are still taking the dioasuar-bird fairyale seriously.

Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, equated the belief that birds are descended from dinosaurs to “…one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age — the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.” – Open Letter to National Geographic Society, 1999
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4159.asp

What you've managed to do is to quote one recognized scientist who doesn't think birds evolved from dinosaurs. (Or at least didn't think so in 1997). You haven't shown why he didn't think so, and you certainly haven't presented evidence that birds didn't evolve at all.

For what it's worth, here's a summary of dinosaurs (plus Archaeopteryx) showing evidence of feathers. All the finds listed except Archaeopteryx were published in 1997 or later.

Edit: Whoops, my bad. The letter was dated 1999. Four of the finds at the link above were published prior to 1999, two were published in 1999, and six after 1999.

 

[DGE Project]

This does not, of course, affect the legitimacy of Archaeopteryx fossils.

Why is the acareopteryx always brought up in tehse discussions? Do we have antoehr David claiming tht Fred said the acrchoepteryx was a hoax?

However, reading the footnote in the Fossil Illusion article I can just barely see how a few of our less informed evo-babblers could misinterpret it, so I changed 'equated the alleged dino-bird link to' to 'equated the belief that birds are descended from dinosaurs to' (technically there is nothing wrong with the original, since I used 'the', not 'this' before 'alleged dino-bird link', but for the sake of the grammatically challenged I changed it

). See the full article 'Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record' here.

It is worth noting that this is a very common occurrence among evolutionists, to nit-pick on the most trivial of items, and then declare their opponent a "liar". I think this is a good commentary on which side can argue from the strength of evidence, and which side cannot.

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words... useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth (1 Timothy 6:3-5)

​

Fred Williams