Was the "Missing Link" in human evolution a man or a woman?

Answer 1

Uhm .. the "mising link" idea is not part of Darwin's theory. Precisely the opposite. It is a Creationist concept to try and discredit evolution. I.e., it is the constant claim that between any two related species found in the fossil record, there is some "missing" stage between them that must be found or else the claim of relationship must be rejected. It doesn't matter how many new fossils scientists find that fill in the fossil record, creationists will *always* raise the objection of a yet a new "missing" link. It is an absurd, intellectually dishonest strategy that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science.

You illustrate how absurd it is by your question. By requiring the final missing link to be not just a species, but an *individual* (a single male or a single female), you point to the final absurdity that creationists are approaching. Namely, that creationists will not be satisfied unless it is shown that *every single individual that ever died was fossilized*. I.e. unless scientists find the fossil remains of each and every one of the billions of humans and pre-humans who ever lived, you will continue to say "where's the missing link?"

Incidentally, I don't necessarily put all the blame on creationists for this silly reasoning. The press loves to come up with a news story with the words "Missing Link Found!" every time a new major fossil find is made. It's as if the press believes that this will finally settle the evolution/creationism debate. But Evolutionists just groan; and Creationists get startled for about five minutes, before they redirect their demand for yet a *new* missing link.

The whole "missing link" issue is really quite stupid and simple-minded, and has very little to do with actual science. Nobody who actually understands science, or the theory of evolution, uses the phrase "missing link" any more.

Answer 2

There are no actual links much less "missing" ones.


Human Evolution: What is it?
Human evolution is not supported by the fossil evidence. Much of the alleged evidence that filled text books over the last 50 years has now been reclassified or rejected altogether. The missing links are still missing.

Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence
Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human Evolution: The Current Tree
Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

Answer 3

The missing link would have been a population of animals, not just one.

The population could have lived for a long time, or a fairly short time, but it was not just a one-generation time span. One of the missing link babies was born with a mutation, one that made it closer to being "human", and it passed this mutation on to it's children as well. These more fit animals out-competed the others, driving them to extinction and taking over the population. This process was repeated until eventually homo sapiens came to be.

Answer 4

There is no "missing link." Anyone who uses that term nowadays in the field is laughed at horribly. (Did you hear that, Don Johanson? We're laughing at you!) Using the words missing link assumes that we're only missing a single piece that will tie the whole story together, and that's just not plausible.

Answer 5

one of humanities many frailties, an ego that must be constantly fed and validated. for years the north american Continent was missing. "link" presumes there is/was one. "missing" presumes we (as a species lost it). for all of our technology and progress. there is a good chance we have lost more useful pertinent information than we currently have found.
Being a male, I would have to be missing a woman (guys are everywhere).

Answer 6

Both. The missing link refers to a period when evolved mammals transitioned to another level, not a single instance of A LINK.

Answer 7

It's both, because the missing link would represent a GROUP of the same organisms that are an intermediate step.
So, it wouldn't matter the gender of one specific fossil because scientists are looking for a particular group/species (maybe subspecies).

Answer 8

The missing link is neither man or woman but a whole species of hominid that completes the evolutionary tree of our species homo sapiens, basically it show how our ancestors slowly changed into us.

Answer 9

There's no PROOF of a missing link. It's a theory.

Answer 10

if the answer were known it wouldn't be the "missing link"