Simply, I believe that from the point of view of human beings, they are only possibilities, but the creative scientists are trying to understand the rules of the Great Creator.

Hi, Omar,

I agree that maybe is a God's rule, but this does not answer the question. So, what may be the reason that this God's rule does not produce the links from one species to another?

Maybe because this link doesn't exist

Gilberto,

in the case they don't exist how do you think the million of different species appeared?

By a creative mind (yes, I'm a creationism scientist). The mode could be by something (as radiation) which affects directly and "instantly" the DNA.

When I saw the delayed Jorge's answer to this question , originally the:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/who_has_come_first_Hen_or_Egg

and some recommendations, too, I decided for my own contribution. I hope to stimulate some (a lot of) thinking in scientific sphere...

I think that this answer touches also the question, Jorge sets at:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_can_be_the_reason_that_no_lost_link_of_any_species_has_ever_been_found_Is_it_possible_that_the_evolution_within_a_species_does_not_happen

So I will put it also there… Thanks for (further) reading…

In the field of searching answer to the fundamental ecologic question (Why we must save the Earth?) I collected from the read literature and partly developed information from three sources, which first set the doubts to the theory of evolution and then gave finally the ultimate answer. It's not a religion. It is today's state of the scientific art… The fields, which give us the "hence", are:

· Genetics, with complex molecules and advanced biochemical processes, probably unable to be synthetized and "developed" in early Earth's oceans;

· Geology and archeology, with unlogical time gaps between appearing different forms of life;

· Psychotherapy, with insight to the causes of the many individual's diseases and health troubles.

I decided to translate my essay, explaining and connecting the reasons, which connect these three fields. But it will last one or two days and I'm asking for some patience. The answer to the upper set question gave also the answer about the real origin of the (our organic) life. The Earth must be preserved because (maybe our) highly developed souls created it, the nature and the human, too, to use them for incarnations into material life forms, which give other possibilities of learning.

For today, I made a transcription from a book of psychiatrist Michael D. Newton, a scientist, who made the breakthrough into possibilities of recovering memories, carried by our souls from one to the next incarnated life, and which tell about the soul lives between incarnations… Acquiring these memories of very old and experienced souls are the ultimate answer about the "hence". I append this transcription and I hope that the author will not stand for his rights…

I am giving also the links to the Institute of Linguistic Wave Genetics, where they research the meaning of "junk" DNA between genes:

http://wavegenetics.org/en/

and to the article of Peter Garjajev & Co., which was also published here on RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228926241_Principles_of_Linguistic-Wave_Genetics

For next days, I believe, enough reading…

Regards, Milan Malej

Hi, Milan,

thanks for answering the question. I am eager to know what else you will bring.

Gilbert and Osmar, your answers do not explain the question.

I think, Gilbert can be basically correct. The certain links between species, we expect to exist, because the animals are similar, are simply not seen to us people. And this could explain or confirm the testimonies of souls in hypnotic regressions into their previous lives. If the highly advanced souls cooperate at creating the life patterns, then DNA of many species have been brought or transmitted somehow directly from Creation and this can be, what he means with radiation influencing directly to the DNA...

Today I translated, what I have promised yesterday. It is some explanation and shortening of the links from yesterday, and my own consideration in form of doubts, where the facts or theories don't fit together. Well, maybe I don't understand some things as they really are, and the conclusions are also not correct... But therefore we try to discuss together and tolerantly, I think...

Basically the article is a part of wider ecological discussion and just one side of argumentation, why we must make every effort to preserve this nature and keep the planet in condition, which will allow further development of organic and spiritual life together...

What is Kenneth Towe saying in other hydrate and methane thematic, might be probably true. The climate changes are escaping out of our control, but this doesn't absolve us that we don't try to live and act fairly toward the nature, as it would be still much more chances to turn time back... Exactly because of this reason, we are talking about...

Still nice day on the other side of the globe :-)

Milan

Milan, pls inform if you got the file I sent to you, ok?

Jorge and Milan,

In my point of view there are some troubles in the 2nd evolutionary route.

Independently of the creationism route (young or old Earth), by the evidences it is impossible accept which the 2nd evolucionary route is possible (specie evolving in another specie).

By creationism, the specific DNA that determine each specie was created since the beginning by God (it's my creed) and this species evolved following the 1st Darwin evolucionary thesis (horizontal changes). To Creationism, the missing links never existed.

But some evolucionism scientists believe that the missing link was not possible to obtain because the natural changes that guide this evolucionary steps were so fast that was not possible to "save" some fossil evidence.

I still believe that Darwin was amazing in the natural selection, but this 2nd route (species to another species) is hoax.

Hi, Gert,

Sorry, but it seems I was not clear. Evolution theory is brilliant. I just think the mechanism is wrong and still not understood. Darwin clearly mentioned to evolutionary mechanism. 1st one is horizontal and it is what he thought it is the only one possible to occur and preserve evidences. By this route after a few hundred generations and adaptations the end-member species is so different from its ancestors that it is a new species. Th 2nd one is the horizontal. A sadden salt or jump directly from one species being followed by a new one. He discharged this as a real possibility. This is found by reading On The Origin of Species.

I also don' want to enter the creationism theory, but some colleges took this route and for a question of respect to their freedom I try answering them, but you do not must feel obligated.

Well, back to lost links, I cannot agree with all you said. I only know ONE and unique really proved evolutionary sequence. The small 4-fingers horse grading till the actual relatively giant 1-finger form (hoof). But, even in this case, the form that was transformed in the 4-fingers horse was never presented, only supposed. But Darwin supported his understanding exactly by considering that large amounts of gradational links must surely exist or be found.

But except by the partial horse links all other links are speculative and although horse's evolution is quite clear, it 4-fingers form seem to have come from nowhere. Nowadays, there is a constant search for DNA responses in order to support finding such links, but DNA linkage will also not explain the mechanism of the horizontal salts or why evolution do not present the lost links.

That's what I am saying.

Hi, Gert,

No, you got me right.

I do not agree that there so many evidences, and when they at least exist they are few and allowing an opposite conclusion.

coelacanth, Shark, Turtle, they all are living fossils an/or perhaps without evolutionary descendeants. So, a good theory must apply at any case. This doesn't.

I think that the absence of the so called lost links indicate the main evolutionary mechanism is not the vertical but the horizontal jumps.

That's my question.

And, Gert,

when the missing links are not found we can presume two things:

Their register was not preserved; or

They never existed.

Why evolutionists insist in say they were not preserved? Among the millions of fossils found since Darwin made his theory, don't you think at least a few dozen thousands of such lost links should have been found yet?

But ok. I am open to learn about it from you.

Dear, Gert,

1st of all, the theory of "jumps" is not mine it's Darwin's. He simply refused it. But anyhow the theory is not mine, it's his.

2nd, as many others do, you are just repeating previous errors. Pay attention to this what "tolweb" has to show. It shows exactly jumps, jumps and extra jumps. No evolution within the same species at all. It is all parallel. Side by side. The base does not evolve to the upper. It is "something unknown" that evolved at the SAME TIME to Proboscidea, Embrythopoda, Desmostylia and Sirenia, and the same with the upper genders, and all of them came through jumps from the same unknown species of course. It is what you yourself presented. Of course, you can be or not sure, believe or not believe, whatever you want, and so do I.

Being angry or aggressive will not change the fact that the evolution carried within a gradation of a same species has no real proves and it is supported only by means of supposition. To say that no evidence is not a prove that evidence does not exist also does not prove it exists. It only prove you want it to exist.

In fact, nature is very clear. An species is affected by something and become suddenly a knew species. Maybe it is your proteins, but the real fact is that some times a knew species emerges and the ancient one also stays or disappears. That's an observed fact. Links are not found. Never were.

Darwin refused that mutants suddenly appear and if they are adopted they remain, if their ancestors are still able to produce normal same species members they also remain, if they both are no longer fitting with the environment both disappear. That is it. It is not the environment that forces adoption, this way the species would disappear. No, it is a mutant that is borne adopted for that environment and survives. it is obvious.

Who believes that a wolf and his progeny starts swimming and after a few generations his descendants will exchange paws for flippers and become whales because there is more food in the sea??????? This is a complete stupidity.

It is clear that some wolves have mutant progeny with flippers and that if they are born close to the water and manage to get there they will survive. The question is why does the new mutant species arises fully adopted, I mean, only those ones that know and manage how to swim, how to hunt in the sea, etc, will survive. But that the organism is also adopted to the new biochemistry it will eat is really a miracle, although for the ones who are not death and vanish are certain.

Maybe if Darwin knew DNA, radioactivity, at least Mendel's laws, he would have come to the opposite idea. It is clear that he refused the "jumps" because of the lack he had about such knowledge.