You:When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.
Me:Since this is what you require, please define this 'missing link' in detail sufficient to potentially classify any future discovery as being 'your' missing link. Please be as detailed in your description as possible.
If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting. You state you require specific evidence to convince you, and that nothing presented to date is sufficient, yet you will not describe, in any detail at all much less detail sufficient to identify it as such, what this evidence would be, while claiming all of the evidence presented to you is insufficient.
"If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting."
Then my request of where are the "transitional" fossil remains of those creatures between what has been found to date is not a sufficient answer to what I'm asking for?
Think. What are the reported time periods between what scientists have uncovered to date? If these fossil remains are, according to common decent" linked by evolution to each other, then would you not reasonably predict that there would be fossilized remains between each of those found in the fossil record in light of the fact that the evolutionary changes are small over any given period of time?
Think. The differences in the present fossilized remains on record are huge. There must be fossilized remains which are closer and closer approximations going out from the oldest to the most modern which would show the evolution from one to the other. It is the fact that between the current fossilized remains exist no other fossilized remains, despite the expansive time between each, which puzzles me. It is this question to which I seek answers.