What is the missing link in evolution?

Question

The History channel is airing a program next Monday called the Link. It's about a 40 million year old skeleton that is supposedly the missing link in human evolution. I don't really trust the History channel but this could turn out to be another win for evolution. What do you think? Could this be the missing link in evolution or has the History channel blown this 40 million year old skeleton out of proportion?

Answer 1

people seem to misunderstand the term "missing link."



yes, it is true that there is no missing link.. but, rather, missing links.



as the traditional "missing link" is merely a transitional fossil, one which describes or shows us in some way the transition between the split of primates from other mammals like cows, cats, platypusses, etc... there is no one missing link. however, there are many missing links.



think of the human evolutionary history as a chain, each "link" in the chain represents a different species. now, way back in the beginning, there was a master chain, starting with microbes and one celled organism and the such... that master chain then branched to several different chains, all connected at one fulcrum.



this continued to represent the plathora of chain branches we know of today...



although we know how the chain branches look like today, and how they looked back when.... its much harder to know what lies between... exactly how many chain links seperate us between an orangutan, or even a mouse? how many links seperate us between plants?



all these links are missing in our heritage maps, therefore... all of these are missing links.



to say they have found the missing link is preposturous, though to say they have found A missing link, or "one of" the missing links, well, thats awesome.



it just turns out that so far in their investigation... this is the oldest "missing link" we have so far... the one closest to the point where we humans seperated from the other primate group (which consists of lemurs, versus orangutans or gorillas,).



i believe this is a huge win for evolution. but not necessarily a loss for creationism.



as an atheist, i must lay down my guard and assume that if there is a god, an "almighty" one at that, why couldn't he have set things forth in this universe to leave way for evolution??



but, thats as far as my "faith" goes. i still side with facts and science,



so i wouldn't worry about the the history channel blowing things out of proportion on this one.



and as for your take on the history channel, i don't see it. sure, some shows on it aren't that straightforward or are even controversal, like UFO Hunters, or MonsterQuest, but the point of these shows aren't to tell the truth, but to open up the mind. to get people watching the show to think about possibilities... and not propaganda. propaganda says there is no big foot. but science says there's a possibility, though its unlikely.



thats the kind of attitude these type of shows are trying to promote.



they're not asking for your trust, but for your open-minded understanding...

Answer 2

"the missing link" which implies that scientists think that only a single "link" is missing? Sort of silly. "missing link" is a misnomer by the way. Paleontologists and biologists look for transitional forms. "Missing link" implies a chain model for evolution instead of the more realistic branching model. I don't think there's any evidence that indicates that any of the fossils we've found represent direct ancestors of any modern species, though this statement is too general and I could certainly be wrong. I'll be more specific and no fossil related to human evolution from our common ancestor with apes represents a direct ancestor as far as we have any reason to believe. How is this possible if evolution is true? Simple. A direct ancestor would be an ancestor on the nodes of the branching model. As far as we know we don't have any fossils from a node that lead directly to us. This does not, however, suggest that the fossils are unimportant. Their importance isn't in showing us what our direct ancestors were like, their importance is in showing us the time line for the evolution of traits specific to the species homo sapien sapien from traits shared by our common ancestor with apes.



Basically there are no missing links because there are no links.

Answer 3

There can be no doubt that evolution has now been proved and accepted by all accept a hard core of religious fanatics that are at odds with the church!!



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept evolution and the big bang!!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!!

Answer 4

"Like you said- you shouldn't really trust the history channel. It's sensationalized history that will play to the religious majority in the US. So, they'll leave plenty of 'doubt' in the whole evolutionary concept."



It really depends on the show. There are a number of shows on the History Channel that are, like you said, sensationalized (I can't think of a more appropriate term), melodramatic nonsense. UFO Hunters, MonsterQuest, and all the 2012 specials come to mind. Total garbage.



There are, however, a number of very accurate and informative shows on there, such as The Universe, How The Earth Was Made, and Evolve. The History Channel is one of my favourite stations, it just depends on which programs you happen to watch.

Answer 5

There are no missing links. There were many kinds of animals that lived and died, so some people are in a hurry to assert that these must somehow be "related" to humans. Wishful thinking. Animals have always been animals and people have always been people from the beginning. They cannot reproduce outside of their "kind", their family group, and neither can humans. Gecko lizards have 5 fingers too, so what? and who knows how long these "missing links" have been dead? 40 million years? How do they know, were they there to see when they died to make such an estimate? Very funny.

Answer 6

The term is obsolete for more than 100 years now, I have no idea why they use it.



What this is, though, is a fantastically preserved almost whole really ancient fossil, which gives amazing insight into that particular era, so anthropologists have a field day. It is an ancestral lifeform from a branch so far back on the evolution species tree, it's pretty much linking all mammals together.



The primates line (including humans) is well established already. This thing is from before primates branched off.

Answer 7

a missing link is a 'transitional form'. The creature that would bridge the gap between ape and human.



dozens of 'missing links' have already been found between humans and our evolutionary ancestors. The 'missing link' term was used back in the days before so many had been found. It's sad that they're even using it today.



Like you said- you shouldn't really trust the history channel. It's sensationalized history that will play to the religious majority in the US. So, they'll leave plenty of 'doubt' in the whole evolutionary concept.

Answer 8

Creationists used to argue there was no link between dinosaurs and birds. Then we found archaeopteryx. Now there are TWO holes in the theory of evolution instead of one - the species between dinosaurs and archaeopteryx, and the species between archaeopteryx and birds..



I suspect the creationists will respond in like manner, if they even address this new fossil find at all.

Answer 9

The president of Answers in Genesis says an alleged new "missing link" found by scientists is nothing more than an extinct primate.



http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=536242

Answer 10

Give the fossil record is composed primarily of gaps, the missing link constitutes what most folks would call "faith" (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen) ROFL.

Answer 11

It's proof of evolution. That's why the link is still missing.

Answer 12

It's out of proportion.

Missing link between what and what?

It's an interesting and very old primate fossil.

Answer 13

Its an absolute waste of time. 40 million years (please).



i mean how can anyone be so stupid as to think that evolution is real. people are not monkeys. people are people. and for those idiots who beleive that it has been proven, let me just burst your little bubble. ITS NOT!

Answer 14

They have had this small monkey skeleton for over 20 years now, it seems a bit suss that they are announcing it to the world now.



I think their Research Funding must be up for review.



Any publicity is good publicity, they have to look as though they have done something!

Answer 15

There is no official "missing link". It's an outdated term within the scientific community. The reality is that we already have tons of transitional fossils between other primates and ourselves.

Answer 16

From the network that gives us "Monster Quest." LOL

Answer 17

.

Are you talking about the 47 mil year old "Ida" ?



There is NO missing link as evolution is a big hoax !



Not even 4700 years let alone 47,000 - there is NOTHING on this earth over 4300 years old!



It IS just another descendant of the monkeys that Noah had on the Ark !



May God bless you as you study His Word



<:)))><



King James Bible