About the missing link?

Question

Why do people who believe in creation still say that the missing link has not been found?

First off there is no such thing as a missing link in science. That term came to be when early on just after Darwin a scientist thought that evolution from a single cell to us had 25 stages. Stage 23 was an ape like a chimp while 24 was something inbetween and 25 was us.

Evolution has many more stages going into the millions so in science there is no missing link. However there are transition fossils. Fossils that are between stages. We have found over tweny species of hominins that are between apes and modern man.


This is a list of some of them found. Many of skeletons are relavtivly intact and for ones such as Neanderthals we have mtDNA that shows they were a totally different human species.

Australopithecus afarensis
A. africanus
A. garhi
A. aethiopicus
Homo habilis
H. erectus
H. neanderthalesis

I would have said Australopithecus boisei but could not fit it. I left out many of the hominin species including the entire genus of Paranthropus from the list.

A theory is a model that sets forth an idea that has been proven time and time again by thousands of different scientists and supported by tons of evidence while having nothing disproving it. The key part is that it has nothing disproving it. A theory is the closest one can get to a fact in science. Nothing is higher

As you can see saying evolution is just a theory you are using the term wrong. Please do not get confused with a science theory and the every day term we use.

Answer 1

Excellent info with your question! They bring up "missing link" and any other BS they can think of because the whole idea of evolution threatens their way of thinking about God and how the world works and what life's about. It scares them. So they scramble for answers that are not real evidence of anything at all, but that's all they have.

Answer 2

These aren't stages leading to man. It's just as they really are, all different creatures, each their own. It's man's thought that they're connected to each other which is wrong. Man in his ultimate wisdom overlays skulls according to a man's skull on how muscle and flesh should cover other skulls that they think may be an ancestor of ours, but there really can't be one standard applied to all skulls in that manor. For example, if you took the skull say of two different monkeys and the one was a proboscis monkey and you never before seen these two particular skulls but have seen other monkey skulls, just by looking at the proboscis monkey skull you would have no idea that it's nose was so big and long and bulbous, and this applies to any skulls that are unearthed, because no one ever saw one of these creatures alive, they are nothing more than guesses, a man's idea of what it looked like, an interpretation of his own mind. It is this way with all fossils, they are all individual creatures that no one has ever seen alive, nothing more than a man's own ideas, not links but separate, A finch is a finch is a finch, whether it has different looking beaks or colors, that's not evolution, it's adaptation of a finch to it's surroundings, it's still a bird, a kind, just as it states in Genesis.

Answer 3

There are no transitional fossils. They are pretty good at telling stories. It is all made up. It has already been shown that those skeletons are false. Besides I have yet to see one and how come that isn't the biggest news in the world. I have never seen any of of those fossils. You should try harder next time. How many stages does evolution need? I guess as many as you can imagine to fit your story. The big question you should be asking yourself is why do you believe in evolution. Nothing on this earth supports it and yet you still believe in fairy tales. Oh I'm sorry you got brainwashed like eveyone else.

Answer 4

Your are either ignorant of or in denial of the evidence presented in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion where the fossil record displays fully formed species in the thousands and is silent in demonstrating the existence of anything even remotely similar to those same species in its prior record. You idiots need to grow up and toss your wishful thinking and antique ideas of how time plus chance plus chemical soup can suddenly out of nothing come up with a nonphysiological essence of being capable of intelligent thought. You can only break down certain irreducible complex systems before they are rendered as contrary to any logic Darwinian stupidity can muster.

If you (not me) come from apes why are there still apes?
I suppose because a mosquito has a trunk or needle in which to draw blood that means the elephant demonstrates a similarity which proves empirically that evolution is true? Give me a break...which requires more faith, that intelligence grew out of nonintelligence or that the universe is fine tuned by an intelligence that made life possible against all odds?

How do you account for love?

Answer 5

No, you're incorrect. a clinical concept could be testable and disprovable. Creationism is neither, so this is not a concept. Evolution is in accordance to shown data, even even with the undeniable fact that if new data got here to gentle conflicting with it, then Evolution would now not be functional. in view that Darwin proposed his concept in 1859, advances in genetics, zoology and paleantology have reinforced evolutionary concept. over the most suitable 148 years, thousands and thousands of fossils were got here across, including 1000's of fossils of hominids and early people. Genetic discoveries have shown that people percentage almost ninety 9% of their genes with different primate species, construction the case for our origins. .

Answer 6

Wow excellent question, this is a real confirmation where man really came from and I have always believed this to be true, this is what puts the religious sec into survival mode, I can just imagine the insane answers you will receive, this confirms for me just how God created all of us simply from a cell.

Answer 7

You missed Australopithecus boisei.
But you are correct. There are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. Yet the creationist liars keep claiming there are none.
I wonder why that is? Oh yes, lies are all they have since they have NO facts.

Answer 8

Darwin disproved his own theory, when are people going to accept it? Besides, anyone in science knows, that a theory is just that - a hypothesis, a guess - until proven by experiments. Have you ever saw anyone "spring from a monkey?"

Answer 9

The truth of the matter is that Atheistic Macro*Evolution is one Enormous Gap... (well actually a collection of enormous gaps -- rather than the gradualistic sequence we have been led to believe)...
--

The foundational methodology of Atheistic Macro*Evolutionary Theory (AMET) is flawed... At the core of AMET is the concept (axiom) that similarity proves common descent WITHOUT intelligent intervention or guidance.

That axiom is easily shown to be false (based on evaluation of technological artifacts -- which show similarity based on common intelligent design rather than blind unguided macro*evolution).

--
It is relevant to note that ...

Darwinism is ultimately a statement of Atheist Faith.

As Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould has stated, evolutionists "know" that Evolution has occurred; however, there is controversy about the mechanisms involved. In other words, evolutionists are arguing and fighting about the mechanisms involved.

This is code-speak for the fact that evolutionists "believe" that evolution happened without God, but they dont really know exactly how. They have a bunch of conjectures and speculations, but they do not have empirical proof of atheistic macro*evolution.

--
There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...

I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...

For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .

Is Evolution a FACT? Not really -- not in the macro*evolutionary sense. See http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/evofaq2.html for relevant discussion.


---
I find that the vast majority of people who believe in evolution, do so by faith and authority.

Faith -- because atheistic macro*evolution is a faith; and Authority -- because they believe in the word of "experts" in the field, rather than truly understanding the evidence themselves.

Cordially,
John

Answer 10

It still doesn't make sense that some surviving group of ape-men weren't around. Look at all the different species of monkeys and apes that survived!