Where are the missing links between man and ape ? Have they gone missing again ?

Question

Anybody give me proof of the missing link that is accepted fact ?
No skeletons of people suffering from brain microcephaly and no rat people from Pakistan please.
Newspapers regularly report that evolutionary “missing links” have been found. If the links really had been found there would be no need to report that a new missing link has been discovered.
The original specimen of the latest homo floresiensis(Flores man) does not represent a new species, but is a modern Homo sapiens with microcephaly. The PiltDown Man was a fake. What next for wannabe evolutionists waiting for the random chance human creation from ape ?

Answer 1

I strongly disagree with evolution, but there's billions of missing links yet to find. Finding one gets you nowhere proving evolution. There much more stronger evidence against evolution at www.creationscience.com though.

Answer 2

Right here. The concept is fallacious. The notion of a missing link is often used by people who should know better as an attack on the theory of evolution; the idea is that there should be a fossil form representing an intermediate life form between an older species and an alleged descendant species. There are two problems with this: Firstly, ancient life was not in the habit of trying to die in places where the remains would be preserved and it would be easy for paleontologists to find them. (Notwithstanding, more fossils of such are found from time to time.) Secondly, and much more important, genetic information is stored in digital rather than analog form. This means that there is a minimum change that can take place, if one base changes, but there is NO maximum: a single base change can activate all or part of an intron, or de-activate all or part of an exon, such that the resulting change can be arbitrarily large. The only requirement for reproductive success of such a mutation is that the variant be cross-fertile with the original wild type so that it can have offspring of its own. Stack up enough mutations, and you have the enormous variety of life which is found today. The bottom line: evolution is now a proven fact -- which makes it something of an oddity among scientific theories, most of which are not provable (for reasons I won't go into here).

Answer 3

"Missing Link" is an aspect of evolutionary theory that was dropped as more information was uncovered. It was originally thought that man had a single evolutionary growth from an ape-like form (not from an ape), into neandertals, and then into mankind. The "Missing Link" was the form between neandertalensis and sapiens.

Dismissing evolutionary theory because the Missing Link ideal was lost when evolutionary science moved from the evolutionary tree idea into cladistics. With "trees" the missing links sort of existed between the branches where they couldn't be found. Cladistics replaced the "tree" theory by using overlapping and nesting boxes. Missing links are no long what old evolutionists used to picture, some skeleton that had both the traits of the neandertal and modern man, but any number of species that fit differently into the cladogram of a common phenotype.

If you'd like to use the missing link thing as an argument to ruin evolution, you're not going to do it. The nature of science means that scientists don't throw out viable theories with ones no longer balid. It would be like trying to use the fact that parts of Noah's ark have been found on mountains all over the Middle East (from Israel into Iran) as an argument to disprove that the flood happened in the first place.

Answer 4

You claim that since "missing links" have been found, that there is no need to report the discovery of new "missing links." That statement displays a total lack of understanding about evolution.

Evolution states that there is an unbroken chain of ancestors connecting you to a single-celled organism that lived millions of years ago. There is not one or two magical "missing links" that will miraculously prove everything about evolution. Every generation is another link in the chain.

It is a basic fact of nature that most animals do not get their remains preserved as fossils. Most are completely destroyed. Any animal that dies in the woods will be eaten by opossums and vultures and even its bones will eventually be gnawed away by mice. Most links in the chain will be "missing" forever.

The entire concept that we must find every "missing link" in order to validate evolution is complete nonsense. That's like saying that you need to follow one drop of rain from its origins in a cloud until it hits the ground before you can say that the rain hitting the ground actually comes from the clouds.

It simply is not possible to follow one drop of rain all the way down with out losing it in the storm. However, if you take an airplane up in the air and fly it through different levels of the storm and keep seeing the raindrops heading in the same direction, you can be almost completely certain that the raindrops hitting the ground are in fact coming from the clouds in the sky.

Similarly, when you dig back through the many layers of fossilized evidence around the world, you see the creatures steadily changing from the ones we see today to similar, but less complex, creatures who lived in the past. Just like with the airplane flying through different layers of the storm, the steady progression of the fossilized evidence in the bedrock is more than sufficient to say that the animals we know today (including humans) evolved from simple one-celled organisms in the ancient past.

Answer 5

and the idea that some giant old man with a beard just blinked us into existence is a much better way to look at how we came to be.
I like how creationist and jesus freaks like to mock evolution because why....? I guess using Logic and Reason to figure something out is just plain stupid! Those bastards from the enlightenment had it all wrong. Just let the church tell you what to think instead of looking for facts and proof, then the world would be a much better place
Use some big words in your question and everyone will think your smart is that how it works?

Answer 6

Ooops here is your first missing link, you know the one where a fish grows legs and walks on land:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?ex=1301976000&en=76a1b46221b5cc6a&ei=5090

Oops here ya go. 4.3-4.5 million years ago creatures actually lived on EARTH!!

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1822.html

Now answer this question. Where is the proof of Jesus? Where is there evidence of ANYTHING that happend, beyond the bible book?

Why do so many christians demand evidence of evolution, but NONE from their own beliefs?

Answer 7

The only living missing link is George Bush

Answer 8

Their problem is that they confuse Macroevolution with Microevolution. Microevolution is proven, like the breeder who develops a new breed of dog or parrot, or the fact that horses are related to zebras. Macroevolution is what they can't prove-- ape becoming man, fish becoming frog.

How smart do you think they are? They think we came from a rock!

Answer 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link

Get over yourself. A better question would be "what new ideas has Christianity come up with within the last 2k years?"
I'm sorry but science and critical thinking has revealed a lot more about this world than any "bible" ever has.
Another better question would be "why do you feel threatened by these 'missing links' if you have 100% faith in your... uh... faith?"

Answer 10

It's been fairly well mapped out . . .

The mainstream anthroplogists and archaeologists are in agreement.

The 6000 year theory isn't holding up so well, however.