I just have one question, Really easy. I need to know what the missing link is? so i can believe?

Question

i'm a monkey girl too like the intelligent ones on this site:) The missing link, no cut and paste thats like 5000 words that i'm not going to read anyways, one sentence will be enough, ty.

Ha
HAha, really? there isnt one? WoW!

see i don't call people stupid or dumb. not even the stupid answers. it doesnt make me feel any smarter to do so mr dvlsadvocate.

paul, i know, but sometimes people like to say we Have the missing link, and its amazing i didnt get that in this question.

Answer 1

There is no missing link.

Answer 2

The problem with "missing links" is that to a creationist, as soon as you provide one, they consider you to have created two new gaps!

That is, if you need a link between Old species --> New species; and you provide "Middle" species, now like magic you have two gaps! One from Old-->Middle, one from Middle --> New.

No creationist will ever, ever be happy with any fossil provided.

The whole idea of "The" missing link is a bit of popular mythology, which grows from a lack of understanding evolution. What is "The" missing link? What one, single fossil could possibly be "The" final evidence for evolution? It's nonsense to think that way.

If you want examples of fossil transitional series, they are numerous though.

For those who are truly interested, I include links below. ( If someone states up front they won't read information in a link, they aren't truly interested. So be it. Some people are.)

Answer 3

Some Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Answer 4

Show me the money, eh? You are saying that if we can just show you real live proof of one thing that happened more than 10 million years ago, you'll believe evolution. Nice.

Theists often say that proof of God is all around us, all you have to do is "open your eyes and look". I've looked in the face of a great ape, and I saw my cousin. I've looked at studies of DNA that show a tree of life that rings true to me.

There have also been many occasions in recent years when archeologists have found missing links along other lines of evolution. For example, go to http://pandasthumb.org/ and search for "missing link". An URL to do that search is below.

Answer 5

There is no missing link per-se. That is that although there are lots of protohomanids (ape-men) there is not a single set of remains from one which would fufil the criterion of "missing link". This is probably because the intermediate species between Homo Sapiens and the earler ancestors only exited for a few generations and no bones from this era have been dicovered. We have an almost complete picture of homanid evolution but no "missing link". Personally I would say something like Homo Habalis or Homo Errectus is pretty damn close.

Answer 6

Nikki; there is no missing link. Only those who hate the "awful truth" of life.

We all here on earth extend out of four individuals: God and His Wife, whom we are made in the image of and were created on the 6th day, and Adam and Eve.

God made a new race when He cursed Caine giving him and his seed a different skin color, that he would be known on site so that people coming accross him would not kill him. This was the origin of the canaanites; whom everyone else were forbidden to blend with. Which of course when man disobeyed God and mated with anyway, made a new race.

The blending of all these made what we have today.

The closest we have to any beasts of the earth, is the fact that we all were created from the ground.

Sorry for the extra words; but I just wanted to be concise.

Answer 7

You won't find one connecting us to monkeys. We had a common ancestor. In order to connect us, you would have to trace both humans and apes back and find where they converge. Evolution is a FACT. It is only called a theory because it cannot be observed in a lab. FACT. Populations change over time. FACT. over a couple million generations things change a great deal. FACT. We were not magically beamed on this planet 10,000 years ago.
Creationists: If you believe in genesis, where do the dinosaurs fit in? You will probably say "well we don't know how long their days were." Now, if you said that, didn't you just validate evolution? Unless your all-knowing god made something he wasn't happy with, in which case he wouldn't have made it in the first place being all-knowing.

Answer 8

The missing link between what?

Answer 9

Did you conclude there is a missing link from actually examining the fossil record yourself? Or did some creationist somewhere tell you that? Are you thinking for yourself or do you let others decide what's true and what isn't?

Answer 10

One thing is for sure. Anyone who tells you there are no transitional species has never bothered to take a paleontology class or they'd have seen better with their own eyes. People who post this have never read anything but fundie books that lie about the evidence. A few days in digging out fossils for themselves and they'd know they'd been lied to. But the nice thing about people of faith that makes them a great target for hucksters is they are already inclined to believe without proof what they want to believe, and ignore without warrant what they don't want to know.

Answer 11

There IS no missing link between modern day humans and modern day apes. Millions of years ago, humanoid primates looked almost exactly the same as the earlier primates they just recently branched off of.