Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Basic Misunderstanding

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on August 12, 2003 01:06:34 UTC


Why do they call the missing link the “missing link”? Because its missing.

This term is actually quite archaic. The current 'missing link' could refer to a few different links (e.g., common ancestor of chimp/hominid from that of the gorilla's ancestor, common ancestor to hominid from that of the chimpanzee, common ancestor of homo from that of anthropithicus, or even the common ancestor of homo sapiens from that of homo neandertal). Of course, these are a number of 'missing links', but considering our knowledge during Darwin's time when there wasn't any fossil records of pre-homo sapiens, the evolutionary trail is being filled in almost on an annual basis. The thing about such an evolutionary trail, one can always find gaps since evolution is neither constant or linear. So, finding the remaining 'missing link' is very unrealistic.

Its just that a slow gradual process is not supported by the fossil record.

I was serious about reading If you would, you would see your concerns addressed. There has been much effort on behalf of many experts to address these issues in layman terminology.

I am sorry if you were overwhelmed by the medicine topic, but please remember I didn’t bring the medicine topic up. I thought I made my statements and questions as simple and short as possible. I really didn’t ask for a complicated answer.

No need to apologize. However, the reason for my negative reaction is because I see no benefit to review elementary science if areas where the evidence is very sound (e.g., interpreting fossil record) and the experts of evolutionary theory have addressed common concerns not only at a layman level, but also at a professional level where specific evidence is heatly debated for reasons that are often beyond the comprehension of the layman. That doesn't mean that laypeople shouldn't investigate these issues (far from it), it just means that a certain level of respect for expert opinions should be adopted early on. That's why I suggest that you read and study the site before making comments that do not address the important issues concern for evolutionary theory. For example, instead of being concerned about the 'missing link', you should gain a good grasp of the evidence gathered over the past 150 years and how evolutionary theory has come to be regarded as one of the most obvious truths to be mainly overlooked by human civilization prior to the brilliant Charles Darwin.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins