Evolution and the Missing Link: Why Is It Missing?
When we say "missing link," we invoke a metaphorical chain, a set of links that stretch far back in time. Each link represents a single species, a single variety of life. Because each link is connected to two other links, each is intimately connected to past and future forms. Break one link, and the pieces of the chain can be separated, and relationships lost. But find a lost link, and you can rebuild the chain, reconnect separated lengths. One potent reason for the attractiveness of this metaphor is that it allows for the drama of the quest, the search for that elusive missing link.
Charles Sullivan and Cameron Mcpherson Smith go on to explain in the May 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer that while the metaphor is seductive, it's mistaken:
But the metaphor is as misleading as it is attractive. The concept that each species is a link in a great chain of life forms was largely developed in the typological age of biology, when species “fixity” (the idea that species were unchanging) was the dominant paradigm. Both John Ray (1627-1705) and Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1797), the architects of biological classification (neither of whom believed in evolution), were concerned with describing the order of living species, an order they each believed was laid out by God (Ray suggested that the divinely specified function of biting insects was to plague the wicked).
But while the links of a chain are discrete, unchanging, and easily defined, groups of life forms are not. We generally define a species as some interbreeding group that cannot, or does not, productively breed with another group. But since species are not fixed (they change through time), it can be difficult to be sure where one species ends and another begins. For these reasons, many modern biologists prefer a continuum metaphor, in which shades of one life form grade into another. Life is not arranged as links, but as shades. The metaphorical chain is far less substantial than it sounds.
Thus the chain metaphor is wrong. It doesn’t accurately represent biology as we know it today, but as it was understood over four centuries ago. The myth persists because of convenience; it is easier to think of species as types, with discrete qualities, than as grades between one species and another. In school, we learn the specific characteristics of plants and animals; this alone is not a problem, except that we are not often exposed to the main ramification of evolution: that those characteristics will change through time.
So, our idea that there can even be such a thing as a “missing link” was created in an era of biological research which is long gone. It’s a concept which is no longer valid in our current understanding of the nature of life and evolution — but, as is so often the case with appealing concepts, it continues to live on, to structure people’s assumptions, and to influence how they think about evolution.
This is almost always an unfortunate situation, but it is especially unfortunate here because the concept of a “missing link” creates confusion and misunderstandings which creationists are able to exploit. Perhaps the creationists know that they misunderstanding things; more likely, though, is that their misunderstanding is completely accidental and, in fact, one of the reasons why they are creationists in the first place.
Life is more like a spectrum than a chain, but not a spectrum with discreet ends. It’s a spectrum in that there are gradual transitions from one species to another, all of whom are certainly linked together, but no discreet links in a chain which can be broken, repaired, or readily followed. The more people understand this sort of thing, the better equipped they will be to understand evolution as a whole — not to mention the entire field of biology itself.
Read More:
Comments
I will confess, the idea of links is more intuitive than shades. A continuum works for a direct line of descendancy, but when you have branches and forks (as when 2 or more new species branch off from a common ancestor), continuums and spectrums aren’t as easy to visualize. Maybe the best analogy in this case would be the classic tree of life.
I don’t give much credence to creationists’ use of “missing links” or missing transitional fossils to somehow disprove evolution. Supply them with one, and they just ask for the one in between the missing link and its ancestor and/or descendant. If they had their way, evolution could be proven only with a complete fossil record of every plant, animal, and germ that ever lived in the history of life on Earth. (Which is to say, never.)
That’s the best you can do? Don’t worry about explaining what we can’t explain because life is a spectrum! What a load of crap!
Perhaps if you represented the argument correctly, instead of creating a straw man, it wouldn’t look like a “load of crap” anymore. Ironically, the demand for “missing links” comes from others who themselves in the process misrepresent what evolution is, so it’s really not surprising that attempts to correct this would also be misrepresented.
If the idea is so outdated and doesn’t make any sense, it’s interesting why scientists also claim to be searching for it.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0413_060413_evolution.html
If the changes are ‘gradual’ like you say then we should have some fossils to prove that. Thanks for a bull**** article against creationists. Quit wasting peoples time.
The problem with providing links like you did is that readers can see how you are misrepresenting things. The article says nothing about scientists searching for the sort of “missing link” described in my article. In fact, none of the scientists quoted use the term “link.” Did you notice that?
That statement wouldn’t be made by anyone who understood how hard it is for fossils to form.
Whereas your comment, consisting of nothing but misrepresentations and falsehoods, represents a good use of time?
Go to the museum at the La Brea Tar Pits and see change over time. They have pleanty of fossils there.
… or check out my youtube video showing gradually progression from a common ancestor with chimps to us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dvqq7y_SCw
For a more accurate video, check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE&feature=related
To Greg and others who share his views on evolution,
You do realise that thousands of fossils of various forms of life have been found right? Including missing links. Its not open to debate anymore, go to any decent secular museum and they will most likely have such a fossil, or at least information of musuems that do have them.
So how about next time you get your facts straight before wasting people’s time?
The best comment I can make to you as a former science teacher comes from Dr. Thomas Dwight of Harvard. He states, “We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any good influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproven, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as scientific fact.”
Tell me, from which book of dishonest apologetics or pseudoscience did you scrape that quote? Had you deigned to investigate it further, you might have learned that Dr. Thomas Dwight was an instructor of anatomy who died in 1911.
This means that the “now” of the quote was, at best, a reference to the first decade of the twentieth century — long before many of the discoveries which have proven not only the evolution is a fact, but also that evolutionary theory is as sound and solid as other scientific theories like Plate Tectonics. Don’t you suppose that there has been quite a bit of advancement in the past century?
A bit more investigation might have also revealed that evolutionary theory is the very foundation of modern biology. Evolution is the framework which binds together all the various aspects of biology in the same way that Plate Tectonics is fundamental to geology. Don’t you find it curious that there is hardly anyone in science today who takes the position which Dwight stakes out — and that those who do all do so for religious rather than for scientific reasons?
I find myself compelled to wonder if any of this disinterest in history, research, and facts is in any way related to why you are a former science teacher, and not someone who currently has any responsibility for teaching science to young people anymore. It is certainly interesting that the “best” comment you can make on a scientific matter is a century-old quote from an anatomist who is now better known for his contributions to Christian apologetics than to the advancement of science.
The one thing I’m sure of is that the Biblical account of creation has nothing to do with anything more than the myths that were collected to make it. It does have a certain resemblance to ideas involving early cognitive development: chaos, naming, etc.
Austin if you wan’t to be decieved and stake your eternal destiny on missing links which are planted by satan to decieve small minded men like you. Be my guest. The bible is very clear about these things and if you would take the time to read you would know this. But you in your atheist arrogence always tell us to “Prove it” when we say the truth. I hope there is plenty of popcorn in heaven because I can think of nothing more satisfying than sitting back and watching you burn in hell for all eternity.
In reference to Warrior for Christ’s comment, don’t you just love the logic? Since he lost the debate because of evidence, he had to resort to threats of eternal punishment — curtesy of his loving god.
Of course, there are large numbers of intermediate fossils (e.g. “missing links”). I’ve gathered a list of a few at our science page — along with many links explaining evolution.
The evolution of humans from other primates, over the last 5 million years, is well-documented. I also have a section on our science page with significant evidence. This is an excellent short article showing the chromosomal evidence.
Here’s a moderate overview of the Theory of Evolution.
Warrior,
‘Austin if you wan’t to be decieved and stake your eternal destiny on missing links which are planted by satan to decieve small minded men like you. Be my guest. The bible is very clear about these things and if you would take the time to read you would know this.’
As far as I’m aware Austin has read the Bible, which is incidentally a work of fiction which has no bearing on modern science. Have you ever read a single scientific book in your life? I suspect not.
‘But you in your atheist arrogence always tell us to “Prove it” when we say the truth.’
If you can’t prove it how do you know its the truth?
‘I hope there is plenty of popcorn in heaven because I can think of nothing more satisfying than sitting back and watching you burn in hell for all eternity. ‘
You’ve said this quite a few times, what exactly do you think you’re achieving by doing so? Besides, doesn’t it ever strike you as odd that god is supposedly loving yet will send people to hell for eternity just for not believing in what humans have said he wants you too? Even if there is a god maybe he’d rather send hate-filled extremists like you to hell, have you ever thought about that?
I notice once again you don’t even suggest the precense of evidence for anything you say.
“missing links which are planted by satan to decieve small minded men like you”
Damn – if only I’d known that when i was writing my thesis. I could have changed the focus a bit “Mega-fauna in Oceania: Satan’s hilarious prank”
I really am trying not to be pedantic, but when I read letters with obvious misspellings, & glaring grammatical errors that are written by people such as “Warrior.” I ask to be forgiven for saying that people with such a low intellect & educational standard should not enjoy a response. In the first place it raises their status, secondly there is absolutely no way they will actually give any credence to an intelligent reply.
It is both understandable, and totally in keeping with, the world over, a lower education, and I Q, invariably equates to a deep belief in religions.
It is not a requirement, highly educated people do have theistic beliefs. Atheists are not all from the upper echelons of Academia either.
The main difference is that the latter, without exception, come to their position from making their own decisions, often from a previous religious upbringing. Theists invariably have their thoughts and philosophies imposed by a clerical hierarchy or an even higher imagined authority, and never question the veracity of, from the cradle, indoctrination.
I have no objection to debating with a sensible Theist, if that isn’t oxymoronic, but it seems pointless when one is bombarded by scriptural quotations and unsubstantiated “Truths.”
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
I hope there is plenty of popcorn in heaven because I can think of nothing more satisfying than sitting back and watching you burn in hell for all eternity. Comment by Warrior for Christ — July 8, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
You fantasize about being in a position of power because you have none.
The whole idea of “missing links” has more to do with the popular misrepresentations of Darwin made in America during the 19th Century than with the Modern Synthesis that is the basis of biology today. Is it any wonder that American education has sunk so low with people like our former science teacher? I have seen too many science teachers who really did not understand what they were teaching, and very often their problem was a religious objection that impeded their ability / motivation to clarify what was so clearly muddled in their minds.
To get back to the question. Why are the links missing.?
They are not, some may not have been found YET. Under the circumstances it is amazing how so many links have been discovered.
The main difference is when asked. “How do we KNOW ?” Generally the answer is.
“The verifiable evidence points to this conclusion.” Theists have no verifiable evidence but claim that they KNOW, because some semi literate Middle Eastern nomad said so five thousand years ago.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
HI, Austin
You do a fair job in demonstrating the subtleties and nuances of “linking” prior species with new ones. The real problem is that Darwin’s theory never was meant to apply to man although he “assumed” that man evolved similarly as in his theory for other animals. During his time there was no fossil evidence to “prove” an evolutionary linear transition for homo sapiens let alone any for our current physical manifestation as the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens. And, there STILL ISN’T! All previous hominids prior to modern man ended sometime contemporaneously with our presence here. There has been no demonstrable link whatsoever for Homo Erectus, our closest “prior link”,evolving into Homo Sapiens. There is, however, quite a bit of evidence that their was a genetic intervention sometime around 250 to 300 thousand years ago in S.E. Africa (see Zecharia Sitchin’s “Genesis Revisited”). In one of the earliest cuneaform tablets of the Sumerians, labeled by scholars as the “Mutiny of the Pick-Ax”. It tells a very detailed story of how thier “gods”, the Annunaki, used a process which can only be described today as in vitro fertilization to produce a hybrid being they called an “Adamu” or earthling (also translated as “primitive worker”). These Adamus were part Annunaki (using the blood and sperm or “essence” of a young Annunaki male)and the “seed” or ova from an indigenous hominid female(Sitchin believes most probably Homo Erectus) which they found around the mines there in the Abzu (S.E. Africa)circa 300 thousand B.C. He had published this information in his “12th Planet” before the “Out of Africa” theory was proclaimed as a result of mitochondria DNA studies for the origin of a single “Eve” originating in S.E. Africa!
So, briefly, our physical vessel was a product of genetic engineering by an advanced extraterrestrial race using an evolved hominid, which originally was a creation of our ultimate Divine Creator. Kind of puts a few twists in both the Creationist’s and Evolutionist’s theories of man’s origin!
Love to debate all the problems this alternative explanation for our present “evolved” state of physical manifestation.
Your Brother in Spirit,
Wayne
Evolution(if it is true) is ABSOLUTE proof of God.
The bible tells of the ice ages and the extinction of the dinosaurs on the first page. It also says we were made from pre-existing material.
James,
Please forward me a copy of the version of the Bible you possess. I’ve never seen one that contained the word “dinosaur” or the phrase “ice age” on the first page before. How fascinating. Presumably, your Bible also says that the earth rotates around the sun? That the earth is round, not flat? What either gems of knowledge does your Bible possess, that are strangely absent from all the others?
It’s always amazing that simpletons like James claim that their beliefs are based upon evidence, when they clearly have zero ability to actually evaluate the degrees of evidence which things possess. Religious belief forces people to construct increasingly complex webs of self-delusion, until reality must become a place they can only see off in the distance.
“During his time there was no fossil evidence to “prove” an evolutionary linear transition for homo sapiens”
1) All skeletons are transitional. Even yours.
2) Just because we don’t know how we got from A to C, doesn’t meant that pixies did it. Science openly admits the holes in its understanding, and encourages questioning. Religion does neither.
‘The bible tells of the ice ages and the extinction of the dinosaurs on the first page. It also says we were made from pre-existing material.’
No it doesn’t. I’ve read the first page of the Bible many times and that’s a pretty loose interpretation.
Why on earth would we expect to have a fossil of every generation of every animal that ever lived? indeed, with the fluidity of evolution, being based on individual mutations, we would need a fossil of every animal ever to not have a “missing link”. The fossils that we do have imply gradual changes of shared traits in species over time and support the idea of speciation. Creationists need to to realise what evolution is before they attempt to disprove it.
Well, you’re right we don’t “need” every transitional link leading to our current species of homo sapiens, just the one prior to us would be nice. And that’s the problem. All the evidence shows that our nearest previous precursor, Homo Erectus, was at least some 2 million years of evolutionary “mutations” short of modern man!
Again, ALL previous hominids prior to modern man ended sometime contemporaneously with our presence here. There has been no demonstrable link whatsoever for Homo Erectus, our closest “prior link”,evolving into Homo Sapiens. There is, however, quite a bit of evidence that their was a genetic intervention sometime around 250 to 300 thousand years ago in S.E. Africa (see Zecharia Sitchin’s “Genesis Revisited”). In one of the earliest cuneaform tablets of the Sumerians, labeled by scholars as the “Mutiny of the Pick-Ax”. It tells a very detailed story of how thier “gods”, the Annunaki, used a process which can only be described today as in vitro fertilization to produce a hybrid being they called an “Adamu” or earthling (also translated as “primitive worker”). These Adamus were part Annunaki (using the blood and sperm or “essence” of a young Annunaki male)and the “seed” or ova from an indigenous hominid female(Sitchin believes most probably Homo Erectus) which they found around the mines there in the Abzu (S.E. Africa)circa 300 thousand B.C. He had published this information in his “12th Planet” before the “Out of Africa” theory was proclaimed as a result of mitochondria DNA studies for the origin of a single “Eve” originating in S.E. Africa!
So, briefly, our physical vessel was a product of genetic engineering by an advanced extraterrestrial race using an evolved hominid, which originally was a creation of our ultimate Divine Creator. Kind of puts a few twists in both the Creationist’s and Evolutionist’s theories of man’s origin! But, it also explains the missing link…genetic engineering by interventionists from off-planet.
Love to discuss the increasing acceptance and further evidence now emerging which favors this explanation of our current physical incarnation.
Wayne
Isn’t it interesting that Zecharia Sitchin is able to posit all these theories across a wide range of academic disciplines with merely a degree in Economic History, a background as a journalist, and a smattering of ancient semitic languages while those who have devoted themselves for years to these subjects have found no basis for his claims? And as to the latter, his translations have proven ridiculously inaccurate. http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors.htm
So, briefly, our physical vessel was a product of genetic engineering by an advanced extraterrestrial race using an evolved hominid, which originally was a creation of our ultimate Divine Creator. — Wayne Wohler December 17, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Erich von Däniken should sue Zecharia Sitchin for infringement of bulls**.
The real problem is that Darwin’s theory never was meant to apply to man although he “assumed” that man evolved similarly as in his theory for other animals. — Wayne Wohler says on September 1, 2008 at 5:42 am
You do realize that the second half of your sentence contradicts the first half, right?
Remarkably, both halves of your sentence still manage to be wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Man
The best comment I can make to you as a former science teacher comes from Dr. Thomas Dwight of Harvard. He states, “We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any good influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproven, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as scientific fact.” — R.J. Anderson July 3, 2008 at 11:34 am
The telling point about this quote is what it doesn’t contain: namely, any kind of statement that evolution should not be accepted as a scientific fact.
At the end of the 19th century, Darwin’s stock among scientists was at the lowest it would ever be, because no one had been able to identify a means by which organisms could confer advantageous mutations to offspring.
It wasn’t evolution that was out of favor — it was natural selection specifically. Ironically, a contemporary of Darwin had described genetic inheritance, but during his lifetime Darwin never knew of the work of Gregor Mendel.
When Mendel’s work resurfaced early 20th century, scientists realized that this was the mechanism that Darwin’s theory had lacked, resulting in what Julian Huxley called the “New Synthesis.”
This logic does not get rid of the idea of a missing link, now it requires more links. Gradualism is also probably wrong since we know that species tend to not change at all for long periods of time. The biggest problem is that because of how fossils come to be, there will always be relatively few of them. Thus we will only have a very small percentage of the fossils, and those that we have are seriously decomposed. If you want to say that everything originated from one single-celled organism and are only able to demonstrate this with a small fraction of life, then you will have doubters. Especially if it is against the religious belief of people. In science, evolution makes the largest claims of all theories, with the least verifiable support. The idea that Lucy was the missing link was based off of the inclination of the femur to the hip bone on a decayed, degraded set of fossils.
The scientists are doing the best they can with the information they have, but it is incomplete information and they should not state their claims as facts.
Instead we should say that it may not be the best explanation of life, but it is the only one that does not need the supernatural and thus the best scientific explanation we have and leave it at that. Thinking people should change their religious views and not be “creationists” because of a theory that is riddled with holes is not only unscientific, but unrealistic.
darwins wrong. God created the earh
Clearly the concept of a missing link is held in high regard by scientists, from Darwin onwards. (Just try a Google search to reveal the number of articles and ‘missing links’).
Unfortunately our knowledge of living organisms has changed. The argument that change is gradual is clearly wrong. Some changes are rapid and enormous even withing a genus. A change in the number of chromosones from 20 to 22 represent an enormous change (10%). In fact every change in the number of chromosones is a big jump and defies the model of gradualism.
These big changes line up more with the concept of punctuated equalibrium but this concept creates problems as a result of genetic inbreeding. Not a problem if the gene pool is perfectly created and degrading but a dilema if you are working on a long chain of successive genetic mutations with a loss of genetic matterial at each new genus in the line. It simply does not explain the genetic diversity but rasther suggests genetic loss
Its funny…This whole debate between the evolutionist and the creationist…neither side has soild proof of either or… As I myself am partial to the evolution theroy, but still believe in the good lord I find that those who are one sided (either side) are too narrow-minded to accept the fact that there just will not be a real answer until we die.
But thats besides the point, I think this article makes a good point. People always play off ignorance and make up stories that if you really looked at, are not at all coherent. This happens on both sides of the playing feild, sadly too many dumb people in this world.
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is abundant proof for evolution.
{MY WORDS ARE IN CAPS}
K. Anonymous says:
Warrior,
‘Austin if you wan’t to be decieved and stake your eternal destiny on missing links which are planted by satan to decieve small minded men like you. Be my guest. The bible is very clear about these things and if you would take the time to read you would know this.’
WELL… LET’S FACE THE FACTS. THE MISSING LINKS ARE STILL, WELL MISSING. AND ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION, THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF THEM BECAUSE THE PROCESS TAKES MILLIONS OF YEARS. I THINK THAT IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT EVOLUTION IS FALSE.
As far as I’m aware Austin has read the Bible, which is incidentally a work of fiction which has no bearing on modern science. Have you ever read a single scientific book in your life? I suspect not.
THE BIBLE IS A CREATIONISTS BASE TO HOW WE INTERPRET FACTS THAT ARE AROUND US. JUST LIKE EVOLUTIONIST USE THERE OWN IDEAS AND OPINIONS. THE BIBLE IS MY FOUNDATION TO FIGURING OUT HOW THE WORLD CAME ABOUT. AND FROM WHAT I’VE STUDIED, MAN’S IS NOT PERFECT AND HIS IDEAS ARE FALLIBLE. SO I’D RATHER BELIEVE AN ALLKNOWING GOD WHO WAS THERE WHEN HE CREATED THE EARTH.
‘But you in your atheist arrogence always tell us to “Prove it” when we say the truth.’
If you can’t prove it how do you know its the truth?
WHAT ARE WE EXACTLY PROVING HERE. THAT GOD CREATED THE EARTH, THAT WE DIDN’T COME FROM MONKEYS. I’LL TRY MY BEST TO ANSWER BUT I NEED TO HAVE A TOPIC TO PROVE.
‘I hope there is plenty of popcorn in heaven because I can think of nothing more satisfying than sitting back and watching you burn in hell for all eternity. ‘
I DON’T LIKE WHAT YOU SAY HERE. EVERYONE NEEDS THE LORD AND I FEEL BAD FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BLINDED FROM THE TRUTH. GOD DOES LOVE THEM AND IS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR ASKING FOR THEM TO FOLLOW HIM, BUT THEY AREN’T LISTENING. REVELATION 3:20
You’ve said this quite a few times, what exactly do you think you’re achieving by doing so? Besides, doesn’t it ever strike you as odd that god is supposedly loving yet will send people to hell for eternity just for not believing in what humans have said he wants you too? Even if there is a god maybe he’d rather send hate-filled extremists like you to hell, have you ever thought about that?
GOD DIDN’T WANT US TO GO TO HELL. HE CREATED THE WORLD PERFECT AT FIRST AND GAVE MAN CHOICE. WHEN WE SINNED AND ATE FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, OUR EYES WERE OPENED AND WE COULD NO LONGER BE WITH A PERFECT GOD. THAT’S WHY HE DIED AND CLEANSED THE SINS OF THOSE WHO TRUST IN HIM SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO GO TO HEAVEN. JOHN 3:16
I notice once again you don’t even suggest the precense of evidence for anything you say.
WHAT DO YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR. NARROW THE TOPIC DOWN.