Where are the transitional fossils that link all species together?

Question

This is a huge question that needs fully understanding before an answer is attempted.

For a beter understanding see link below - only need to watch the first few minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yye29A2F00&mode=related&search=

As the modern fossil record is so rich, where are the intermediate fossils that pre-date and post date archeopteryx, or more correctly - where are the human remains that supposedly exist if all species co-existed with no evolutionary chain?

This is the dichotomy I face, no intermediate fossils linking species AND no human fossils - this cannot work both ways - it cannot be argued that Darwin was wrong and then fail to produce human fossils only spiders, birds and fish.

I am neither a creatonist nor evolutionist.

Answer 1

I am not a real evolutionist, but those transition fossils could very well still be buried. We haven't been digging things up all that long, really.

Define a "rich" fossil record, by the way. It's not like whole skeletons come popping out of the ground every time we expand a highway :p

It's not a dichotomy if evidence is still being gathered.

Answer 2

I am not an evolutionist though I recognize that evolution is almost certainly a factual theory.  There are literally millions of intermediate fossils that are contained within museums, exposed at the surface and buried beneath the ground.  What makes you think the modern fossil record is so rich.  It is not that rich.  Fossils are very rarely formed and when formed they are buried.  When they are buried they have to be later exposed before we can find them.  There are limited exposure.  Most land is not bedrock.  Most sediment is marine.  The animals that predated Archeopterix may or may not have been found already.  They are terrestrial fossil, possibly small and delicate.  They may have evolved in environments that was dominated by erosion such as a plains or mountain range.  The ones that post date it are flying all around you, presumably.  You asked, "where are the human remains that supposedly exist if all species co-existed with no evolutionary chain?"  There used to be no intermediate forms.  Then some relatives were found.  Then some ancestors.  The fossil record is so sparse that is very difficult to sort them out.  I can't say that Sahelanthropus is definitely our ancestor but you can't say that it isn't.  It is a very probable close relative to the common ancestor with Chimps and humans.  Are you not in the slightest swayed by the DNA evidence that puts the common ancestor with humans and chimps at about 6 million years give or take a million and about 8 million with gorillas.  For me the evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution.  Where is a speck of evidence for creationism.  Darwin was right and the evidence is mounting in his favor with every fossil discovery.

Answer 3

The pro evolution answers have it hands down.

There is no rich fossil record. Fossil formation is an extremly rare event. Then of all the fossils that do form, most are destroyed over time through natural erosion, weathering etc. Of those that survive only a few have been discovered so far. The rest remainto be discovered. Rich yes because even the very tiny percentage of remains that we have are enough to show a prety clear overall picture.

It still has lots of gaps in it and that is no surprise.

Darwins theory of evolution is a theory. It has even been modified to accommodate new evidence, but only in the details not the basic premis. By the wat it was never just his idea, he made use of ideas and thinking available to him by some of his contemporaries (who don't always get enough credit) Since then a whole host of others have refined and added to that theory. As with all science, theories stand and are accepted as long as they work. It only takes a single event/evidence to prove a theory wrong, but no amount of evidence can ever "prove" a theory correct. So far there is no such prove that the theory is wrong. There is no better way to explain the evidence. By the way Einstein's htheory of relativity is only a theory, so is Quantum mechanics, so are all the great advances in scientific thinking, because by the very nature of science theories can not be proven, only supported by additional evidence. The scientific process works pretty well on that basis, giving you access to computers, electricity, the internet etc etc. I think most people are happy to keep those advances coming, and not prepared to through out the scientific method just to appease their religious sensibilities.

Answer 4

One second into that link was enough to convince me of the nonsense coming. Harun Yahya!!?!?! Isn't that some kind of Muslim nonsense? I am an evolutionary biologist, so I have more expertise in my fingernail clippings, than " Harun Yahya " has in " it's " entire being. First; there is no evolutionary chain! Evolution is best thought of as a bush, since populations evolve; not individuals. We have precursor forms for archeopteryx, though not completely, as these fossils are terrifically old. As far as human fossils go, you are entirely in error. Humans are not that geologically old. So, we have a varied progression of human forms. You have been misinformed by that nonsense on youtube. I suggest you go here for the truth.

http://www.talkorigins.org.

Answer 5

What are you talking about? The known species (living and extinct)

ARE clearly phenotypically related in a progression through time.

We probably didn't even need archeopteryx to show us that birds

descended from certain theropod dinosaurs.

Answer 6

The duck billed platapus ate them.

Answer 7

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran...

Answer 8

You should read "Instant Origin" by Gene Kritsky.  A compelling read.

Answer 9

There is definately a missing link in the Theory of Evolution.  It must be noted from the title that it was a Theory, not a fact, and was one man's idea.

I will watch the link again later and make further comments