Why can't we find the missing link to the evolution of mankind?

Answer 1

There is no ONE missing link to be found. Rather, there are numerous missing links that frequently fill in the gaps to the fossil record for many species, not just Homo Sapiens and hominids.

Why we cannot find THE missing link is because, first, there is no one missing link to be found; rather there are numerous additions and transitional forms, some of which may be links to certain species. Secondly, it simply is difficult finding fossil material that is constituitive of real evidence. This is because of a number of reasons, some of which are purely physical, some of which are financial, and some of which are political. Physically, fossils don't last forever and many will never be discovered for various reasons relative to climate, topography, and geography. Fossils are better preserved in some climates than others. Some areas may have contained fossils that would have helped fill in the fossil record, but were destroyed or made practically undetectable or unuseable due to natural diasters, such as erosion, floods, volcanic eruptions and so. Other fossils may be perfectly usable, but after thousands and thousands of years of plate-tectonic activity, are in places that are not within human reach. Other reasons may include not having the money or the manpower to do what is required to find fossils that may be within our reach; it could be the case that we presently lack the technology to find more fossils of the relevant kind. Also, there are political reasons why we have not found more fossils. Some nations and states do not want certain people, if any at all, digging up their land. They have their reasons, and they are all about agendas that have little to do with science and the furthering of our knowledge of the orgins of species.

It is a myth, often employed by creationsists, that there is but one missing link, and that if it cannot be found, then evolution must be false. What nonsense that argument is. It displays a complete lack of understanding of the nature of evolution itself as well as the significance of the fossil record.

Lastly, I wonder how many books and articles that have been written by evolutionists--including Christian evolutionists--have been read by the naysayers. The answers you've been given demonstrate that these people have never even cracked a book that was written by an expert in the field of evolutionary theory (and your creationist pastor who has BA in microbiology from Lame State USA is far from being an expert). Contrary to popular opinion, 'thoery" does not mean "not a fact". In fact, it means quite the opposite. A theory only reaches such a status when it has been thoroughly confirmed by numerous successful hypotheses that have been tested for their factual content. Pop-culture has redefined "theory" to mean "not a fact" with the relativist provisio that "since it is not a fact, all theories are equal" WRONG! All theories are not equal, and hypotheses that have not reached the status of having been well confirmed by the facts are no longer canidates for supposrting a theory . There are plenty of theories that have been discarded--because the facts don't fit, for instance, phlogiston theory, phrenology, and witchcraft theory immediately come to mind. We don't explian, for instance, bi-polar disorder, according to witchcraft theory--a person acts as they do because they are a witch. But if all theories were equal, such an explanation would be just as good as the explantion of chemical disorders in the brain that result in certain nerousis. But the first explanation is not factual, hence, it has been discarded as a theory. No scientist uses the word "theory" to mean "not a fact, but a guess". That idea is mere pop-culture nonsense.

Answer 2

For the most part, people who have answered the question in an evolution context have done a fairly decent job explaining it in a simplistic manner. For the creationist answers, did you not notice this is a science section, there is no room for religion in science. Also, this evolution issue is much more complex then some have made it out to be. As for the missing link part, almost every answer given is off target. The missing link refers to a transitional stage between apes and hominids and yes, some have been found referred to as Orrorin tugenensis (6 million years old), which was bi-ped but retained long chimp like arms for climbing. Therefore Orrorin tugenensis still had semi arboreal habits. So we have found examples of a missing link. I would be happy to send you info. (scanned, via email) on the subject, if you wish to pursue this matter any further.

Answer 3

Uh, the "lack of transitional fossils" is a lie -- there are lots of them. As soon as scientists find new ones, the anti-scientists then require transitions between those and the previous and subsequent forms. Uh, you say none do, then you point out that they do. Yes, fossils are bones -- that's what usually gets fossilized (in the rare cases that any part of any body is fossilized). Uh, yes, scientific names are long, because they name things to both show what larger group they're related to, and their specific name. Just because big words frighten you, doesn't mean that science is false. If you choose ignorance and irrationality, that's your choice. But to choose to not have a clue, an then criticize reasonable people for accepting what evidence proves, you just look silly.

Answer 4

Contrary to popular belief there are PLENTY of "missing links"

The idea that evolution is a crock because we can't find a missing link is just ridiculous!

There are actually quite a few of the so-called "missing links" or intermediate forms on the way to Modern Human... there are so many, in fact, that we can define several "dead-ends" and scientists have been arguing over WHICH one is the RIGHT one...

The question isn't why can't we find the "missing link", the question is why can't people just accept the truth of evolution and stop sticking their heads in the sand hoping that it will just go away...

Answer 5

Australopithecus, (Lucy,) is considered to be a human ancestor of 2.5 million to 3 or 4 million years ago. It walked upright and had a very human body. But the skull closely resembled that of a chimpanzee. Ever since it was discovered in the 1970s, there has been no talk of a missing link in the scientific community.

Answer 6

Here are the links you seek. These are what Man is believed to evolve from. Note the dates. The further back you go, the poorer and more scarce the fossil records become. You should consider that archeologists are looking for fossils of animals (ie Man) that were not as common as dinosaurs were in their time, and had not yet become the most common animal in the world.



Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE
Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE
Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE
Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE
Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE
Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE
Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

The so-called "missing link" lies before 4 million years ago. Just because a fossil has not been found, does not mean it will not be found. Remember; up until recently, A. ramidus and A. aferensis were known only in theory, and were eventually found. The most complete, earliest skeleton is of "Lucy", she was A. aferensis.


Hope this helps.

Answer 7

Bipedalism, complex speaking (tongue), and opposing thumbs require only a few gene mutations in the primate species. As such, we hit the scene very quickly, and in a very small area . We humans killed anything that looked like it could compete with us for food. As a result, there's a big gap between us and other primates; but there's actually a pretty good (and growing) fossil record of the bipedal primate versions that didn't make it.

The lack of primates world-wide, and the relatively short time they existed in their proto-human form, and their helpless exposure as prey to more powerful beasts, would make finding significant fossil evidence difficult. The fact that so much has been found so far is pretty amazing.

(And to be honest --- there is a missing link. I dated his daughter a couple times...)

Answer 8

There is no more missing link. They have been found in the last 30 years. Update your knowledge.

Answer 9

It does not exist. If it did there would certainly be a lot of them it would be stupid to think that there would not be many humanoids in every stage of evolution. It would still be true today-there would be creatures not just humans in every state of evolution. There are not any because they don't exist.

Just a side note to anyone who is saying-oh we have all kinds of em! If evolution were correct then all species would still be evolving and we would not only have living examples of humanoids but all species of animals as well. The argument that we killed them off holds no water because evolution just does not stop. It would be a continuing process we would see in nature every day. We do not however. I don't know the answers but I do know B.S.

Answer 10

I don't have all the facts, I'm no scientist, but the evolution of mankind from apes or whatever has always been...and STILL IS...a theory...meaning it's not been provin as a fact. How many years have they been looking, and sitll not found it? If there's no link...obviously it's not true. lol now that's just me being sarcastic, but it's a theory, not fact.