Evolution, what missing link?

If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss,

So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

I have no clear idea what you're talking about, but I do know that there is no reason why this should not be in the "Science" forum.

Anyways, on this, 'argument'.

If evolution was not a concept, how could one know what a missing link is or isn't. The motion flow of a creature turning into another creature, (fish into a amphibian into a mamale). When evolutionists put a motion piece together, seemingly making the viewer believe that evolution does as such, this occurs in Walking with Monsters. If it was true, I, you and everyone should be witness to it occuring as it is shown in a motion piece, but it does not happen.

This is, well, I don't know. You're saying that because the documentary/show Walking With Monsters is able to use special effects to speed up the process of evolutionary change (fish->amphibian->mammal), which somehow shows the "missing link," and because we do not see this occurring in reality, it must not be true.

Now, I don't think I need to explain the difference between TV and reality is. But it would be good to note that whatever Walking with Monsters shows is based off of fossil evidence already noted. Any "missing link" ideas they present are based off of scientific estimation of what these ancient creatures look like, based on what their predecessors and successors look like.

It tricks a person into believing that evolutionists know how creature evolve, when it is a clear geuss,

Yes, that is what science is - estimation, but estimation based off of fact and observed phenomenon. I have never heard any evolutionist who knows what they're talking about say that they can guess what these "missing links" are outright.

So basiclly you have your self a collection of fossils that all look the same when you look at the two next to each other, but if you look at the last fossil in the collection compared to the first, you will see a huge difference. Impossible, concluding if evolution was true, this would have to be true also.

This doesn't make sense. So if Fossil D is really different from Fossil A, evolution is not true, because it is similar enough to Fossil A. This ignores all tenets of evolution.

Fossil A with these characteristics, turns into Fossil B with slightly different characteristics, which turns into Fossil C with slightly different characteristics, which turns into Fossil D with another slight difference in characteristics. It makes sense then that Fossil D will be drastically different from Fossil A in several ways, due to genetic drift, inherited traits, etc.

I have no idea how this does not make sense.

At 8/19/2009 7:10:36 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am talking about motion not steps or frames but motion. Fossil 1 is no different to fossil 2, as we are not different to people 40 years ago, no different. Well doesn't there come a time where we are different looking according to evolution? But if the next fossils is no different, what makes you think that fossil 2974 will be different from fossil 1? Because of time?

At 8/19/2009 7:10:36 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am talking about motion not steps or frames but motion. Fossil 1 is no different to fossil 2, as we are not different to people 40 years ago, no different. Well doesn't there come a time where we are different looking according to evolution? But if the next fossils is no different, what makes you think that fossil 2974 will be different from fossil 1? Because of time?

Where is this proof that the fossils look no different? Your entire theory hinges on this, yet you offer no proof.

And yes, we are different to people than 40 years ago, very different.

At 8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!

At 8/19/2009 7:32:53 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 8/19/2009 7:23:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
Get me two human fossils and I bet on my life, that one will not look any less human than the other. Thats my proof!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...