The amount of misinformation contained within the confines of the world wide web far outnumbers the websites actually centered around factual information. Case in point if one searches on google for missing link within the first page of results you can find a fantastical story by Dr. John D Morris, Ph.D.
on his explanation of what scientists, specifically evolutionists, consider to be a missing link to the website
Here is a breakdown of his arguments:
“Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both.”
As an evolutionist, I can tell you that no academic endeavors or discussions are centered on the term missing link or the concept. In fact most scientists hate that term because it implies that there is
one magical fossil that bridges us together with apes. Popular science has picked up this term “missing link” as referring to the discovery or hunt for a specific transitional fossil….not “the” fossil.
Since humans last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, our tree has branched out in many directions leading ultimately to Homo sapiens.
In addition, scientists have many transitionally fossils from this time, although much will never be found and some still awaits to be discovered. Just to name a few subspecies of human fossil discovered:
, Homo heidelbergensis
Homo erectus Homo floresiensis
, and Archaic Homo sapiens
John not only failed to cite any such claims by evolutionists in question he then went on to support his argument as follows:
“For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.”
Which John claims therefore that….
“Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.” “If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.”
Evolution does not depend on innumerable missing links. That makes no sense and I am not even sure what he means by it.
From a biological standpoint evolution occurs as such: 1) It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. 2) The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. 3) As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time,
they cause new species to form.
"descent with modification" is when complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code (as mentioned above), the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid
survival -- a process known as "natural selection."
These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an
entirely different creature).
To summarize Darwin's Theory of Evolution;
1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.
In addition…Scientists do not need to depend on innumerable missing links, bacteria
alone proves evolution.
“Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect
to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.”
I do not want to pick hairs but John started his argument saying evolutionists commonly speak of missing links, however, he just contradicted himself here.
In addition, in the 1970’s Gould coined the terms “punctuated equilibrium” basically stating the evolution remains relatively stable then goes through intense periods of evolutionary change. I cannot
speak for all evolutionists but the ones I encounter tend to not support Gould’s work. While evolution may occur like this at times especially during extreme bottle-necking or a drastic environmental
change it can also occur gradually, slowing changing over time. This, however, is just a means of the speed of genetic mutation in a population over time and is no argument for or against missing links.
Johns goes on to say..
“Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vetebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!”
This argument is not logically sound. John spent the last couple of paragraphs arguing that there is no viable definition for missing links yet he still asks where is the missing links. His only poor description
for it would be something that is 20% one thing and 80% something else. Whatever that might mean, which I can only sadly assume is John want to see a species with a 20% backbone. If only he had read even one book on evolution before writing his blog he might have been able to try to
make an intelligible argument.
John ends with
“Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created
separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and
which is more likely correct?”
LMAO. Creationism is more scientifically correct really. Maybe that is because John has built an argument against a completely non-scientific concept that he never explained but rather just kept saying its not found. This blog mine as well replace missing link with flying
spaghetti monster, it would make just enough sense.