@CosmicDebris:
How do they know the little mark means there used to be gills there at some point? Sounds rather silly to me. Maybe the spot is actually future evolution…to prepare us for the day it becomes like the movie Waterworld with Kevin Costner.
@CosmicDebris:
You say that as if it was actually proven when it is in fact a theory with many missing links.
@CosmicDebris:
I'm open to believing either one, and don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but I dislike the fact that some people, who really haven't studied that much about current evolution theory or even considered researching criticism just accept it as fact. One thing is that macroevolution is not possible to observe. You would think that over millions and millions of years there would be more distinct evidence of creatures that were in between amphibians and reptiles, but there isn't. For just about everything there is criticism and criticism of the criticism. It's a complicated subject.
Man, you really don't know anything about evolution do you?
I'm going to assume that you're a preschooler, otherwise you really have no excuse to post the idiotic "Evolution is just a theory" thing you just did, twice.
Lets see if I can't break it down for you.
Commence wall of text bombardment in three, two one…
@CosmicDebris:
How do they know the little mark means there used to be gills there at some point? Sounds rather silly to me.
It's because those same structures develop into gills in fish embryos, and you don't want to know what I think of the idea of an invisible guy in the sky who hands out presents after you die.
@CosmicDebris:
Maybe the spot is actually future evolution…to prepare us for the day it becomes like the movie Waterworld with Kevin Costner.
It's a joke, sure. But evolution doesn't work like that. Evolution is blind design, there is no preconceived blueprint in mind.
Things just don't develop unless they actively serve a function and those fetal structures no longer do. We're way past the point were those structures could actually develop back into gills (just look at whales, they have those structures in their embryos as well).
@CosmicDebris:
You would think that over millions and millions of years there would be more distinct evidence of creatures that were in between amphibians and reptiles, but there isn't.
Not taking into account that the odds of creatures leaving a remains behind for such a period of time is nearly astronomical (the only reason we have so many fossils is because there has simply been soo many creatures living under such a long period of time)…
The main difference between amphibians and reptiles is actually the presence of an amnion, which simply can not be detected through fossilised remains.
We know of a lot of Permian creatures, some of which are early amniotes and some that likely are not, but there is no clear cut line between amphibians and reptiles and there simply never will be.
@CosmicDebris:
One thing is that macroevolution is not possible to observe.
First of all there's not really such a thing as macroevolution and microevolution, there is only evolution.
With that in mind "macroevolution", that is any evolutionary change at or above the level of species (such as speciation or cladiogenesis) has been observed on numerous occasions
@CosmicDebris:
You say that as if it was actually proven when it is in fact a theory with many missing links.
And finally we come to the big thing you said, the thing that shows that you can't have gotten a passing grade in biology or physics from any reputable university.
To quote Richard Dawkins: "A [scientific] theory is actually a higher level of understanding than fact, because the theory explains the facts."
First of all, everything on this planet that's ever lived (including those that are alive today) is either a link or a dead end (the only difference lies in whether or not they've produced offspring).
So far I'm a "dead end" (as are you, I'm assuming), unlike my parents and their parents before them (though I plan to rectify that someday).
Since it quickly becomes impossible to tell whether a creature produced offspring while they were alive once they're dead, we tend to regard all those fossilised remains we find as "links".
Secondly, I've already touched upon the odds of a creature or plant leaving fossilised remains behind for millions of years as well as the fact that some changes don't show up in fossilised remains at all, so the fact that there are "missing" links shouldn't surprise anyone.
You talk about creatures that are in-between and I'm only going to assume that you're referring to transitional forms.
Well guess what, our parents are the transitional form between our grandparents and ourselves, they may not be fossilised (yet), but that's what a transitional form is.
I tend to compare the transitions with ageing, since the changes are so small between each generation/second you don't tend to notice them, but when look at old fossils/pictures the changes become obvious.
There are innumerable transitional forms, since most of them end up missing we often find what appears like huge gaps between them, as the records become more extensive the gaps become smaller.
But we simply will never have a complete record down to every last generation that you seem to require, just like you don't have fotographic evidence of yourself from every second of every day to prove that you've aged, that ridiculous amount of evidence is simply not required to prove that it happened.
Third, we actually have more evidence to support evolution than we have to support the existence of the Titanic. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Besides, if evolution was really as shaky as you make it out to be, don't you think someone would have disproved it by now? I mean come on, you'd get like three Nobel Prizes for that, and let me tell you, that's one hell of an enticement for just about anyone.
I may have lost my original train of though somewhere along the line a few times there but to cut things short, you should really educate yourself on what a Scientific theory is as well as what evolution is.
 
