What site can I go to to find information on the missing link missing link?

Question

I have always heard that some scientists believe in a link between humans and the primate kingdom which proves that man evlvoed from a common ape, chimp, monkey ancestor. I just want to know where the proof is. Thank you for your answers.

Answer 1

There is no such thing as "the missing link."

This is a phrase promoted by creationists to try and discredit the theory of human evolution. First, by using the word "link", they are trying to misrepresent evolution as some sort of "chain", with one "link" followed by another. Evolution is not a chain, but a TREE ... with new subspecies BRANCHING off (due to geographical events, migrations, etc.) and eventually becoming fully isolated species. Second, by using the singular word "link" (not "links"), they are trying to give the impression that there is a *single* fossil that *must* be found to link all of human kind with the animal kingdom ... i.e. they're trying to boil all of paleontology down to a single "missing" find. Third, by using the word "missing" they are trying to give the impression that this fossil is *permanently* missing, and therefore the creature is non-existent. (It is the logical fallacy of mistaking temporary "absence of evidence" for permanent "evidence of absence.") Every single time a new fossil is discovered, the creationists then move the target and challenge for a different "missing link."

Unfortunately, this is also a term that is popularized by segments of the press that are scientifically illiterate. Whenever a new hominid fossil is discovered, they just cannot resist the banner headline "MISSING LINK FOUND?!" Real scientists just *groan* ... because it implies that scientists are somehow looking for a "missing" link. And of course, the creationists pounce on this as if it was scientists themselves making this claim ... and then "discredit" this claim by again moving the target and challenging for yet a new "missing link." And when the scientist in question is interviewed by the press and tries to correct the misperception by saying there is no "missing link", the creationists pounce on this too as scientists "conceding" that they can't find it.

It's a terrible, unscientific phrase. True scientists, and anybody who knows much about science, avoid it like the plague.

Instead, scientists talk about "transitional forms" or "transitional fossils." These are intermediate stages between two existing fossil finds. These are not considered "missing" because new fossils showing transitional forms are being unearthed all the time.

So here is a very good site to learn about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

---- { edit } ----

You added: "I have always heard that some scientists believe in a link between humans and the primate kingdom which proves that man evlvoed from a common ape, chimp, monkey ancestor."

Sorry, but if that's what you "always heard", then you heard wrong. Scientists do NOT believe that. Again, that is the the creationist CARTOON version of evolution. (I'm not blaming you ... I'm saying there's a lot of misinformation out there ... religious fundamentalists have been *very* effective at undermining the teaching and understanding of evolution (especially in the U.S.) ... by using school boards to limit what is said in textbooks or what teachers say, to keeping the press stirred and confused about some "controversy" (which is non-existent among scientists), to what is said in churches, to what you find on the Internet.)

Scientists do NOT believe that "man evolved from a common ape, chimp, monkey ancestor." Really. They don't. They believe that man and the "common apes" (chimps, gorillas, etc.) evolved from a common ancestor, which in turn evolved from a common ancestor with the other primates (monkeys), etc. etc. There is branching happening all over the place ... many branches becoming the dozens of species of modern monkeys and apes, many, in fact *most* branches becoming extinct ... including many sub-branches of our own branch that also went extinct (such as Neanderthal, who is most likely NOT an ancestor). With all these branches, it is impossible to point to a single "link", "missing" or not.

Look, I know you just wanted a link or two ... but before looking at the fossil evidence for what scientists believe, you NEED to know what story it tells ... i.e. what the scientists actually believe.

Here are those links to the fossil evidence:
Transitional forms: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Gateway to many links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Overview of human ev.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Another great site: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/

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

Well, loads of missing links have been found. But in between every two links that have been found there's obviously another missing link. So missing links will always be with us. But the past 150 years of fossil research have been extremely successful. When Darwin wrote there were no other members of the genus Homo to be added yet, now there's about a dozen other members, both ancestors and extinct sidebranches, which were discovered. And yes, Darwin was a christian, but so what? Galilei was a christian as well, and it took the catholic church over 300 years to admit that indeed he had been right. With Darwin it's the protestant churches especially that are struggling, but ultimately all religions will have to adapt or face ridicule or indeed even extinction (it's like natural selection!), because biology is not theology: you can't just believe whatever you want, ignore advances in knowledge around you, and still expect to be taken seriously. The grace period is over. If you still think that your religion cannot be reconciled with evolution then it's your religion that will go, not evolution.

Answer 4

What missing link? If you are looking for information about human evolution then I suggest the TalkOrigins Archive or No Answers in Genesis

http://www.talkorigins.org
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm