# What is the "Missing Link" in science versus evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563 "2006-12-02T03:04:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Harri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7ea924/32.png) [@Harri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harri)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/1 "2006-12-02T03:04:33Z")
I guess I’m basically an agnostic in terms of religion but one thing I’ve never understood in terms of evolution making much more sense is what about the so-called “missing link?” Doesn’t this mean we’ve never found the missing link (DNA?) that totally proves the evolution of ape to man? So, does that have any more proof than the all-knowing “Man in the Sky” jazz? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/2 "2006-12-02T03:10:07Z")
Man didn’t evolve _from_ apes. Man _is_ an ape. There is no missing link. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/3 "2006-12-02T03:40:38Z")
Back in the day, the hominid fossil record used to be much more fragmented than it is today. People would look at gaps at say, our ancestors 3 million years ago and modern homo sapien evidence that started a mere tens of thousand years ago and claim that their was no linear proof that the hominids millions of years ago slowly evolved into us. This began to change in a big way after the [Lucy (Australopithecus) fossil skeleton](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)) was discovered in Ethiopia in the 1970’s. Since then, there have been many discoveries equal to that showing hominids at many levels of their evolutionary tree. The gaps are filled in well enough now that we can honestly say there aren’t any “missing link” gaps although the skeletons are hard to find and scientists will always welcome more to study. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/4 "2006-12-02T03:42:18Z")
Scientists have found dozens of fossils that document the evolution of animals from their distant predecessors to modern apes and men. Not every step along the path has been found but enough have been to show that there was a path. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/5 "2006-12-02T03:49:43Z")
The Missing Link was Dewey Robertson. [http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/09/12/626773.html](http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/09/12/626773.html) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/6 "2006-12-02T03:50:50Z")
Here is the human evolutionary tree. One thing of interest is that Neanderthals were a separate species of human that interacted with modern homo sapiens. There may have been other species of humans as well. The skeletons of Hobbit people were discovered on an island in Indonesia a few years ago and they may have only died out a few thousand (some same hundreds) of years ago. [http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a\_tree.html](http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html) ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/7 "2006-12-02T04:09:32Z")
Back in Darwin’s day, there were no known transitional fossils intermediate between apes and humans. (Though as has been said, taxonomically speaking humans are apes, I’ll use these terms for convenience.) These intermediate forms became known as “the missing link,” and were greatly sought after by paleontologists. (A popular misconception is that there was some single “missing link” that was being sought, instead of any one of many intermediates.) The first such “missing link” was found in 1892, when Eugene Dubois discovered Java Man, now known as \*Homo erectus. \* In the early 1900s additional fossils intermediate between _H. erectus_ and apes, _Australopithecus_, were discovered. As **Shagnasty** says, in the last part of the 20th Century a large number of additional intermediate fossils, including \*Australopithecus afarensis, \* (the most famous find being known as “Lucy”), and others even closer to our ape ancestors have also been found. So many, many, “missing links” have been discovered. The evolution of humans from apes is about as well established as anything can be based on the fossil record (and is also supported by genetic evidence). In fact, we have far better fossil evidence that humans evolved from earlier apes than that gorillas or orangutans did (there being almost no fossils of forms ancestral to gorillas or orangutans). This Wikipedia article on [transitional forms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link) may be helpful. Note in particular the graph of the number of fossils of human ancestors known by various years. ---
**Author:** ![Harri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7ea924/32.png) [@Harri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harri)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/8 "2006-12-02T05:04:20Z")
Thanks, the Wikipedia articles are interesting but I still notice this in there, too. “Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown.” So, it still seems that scientists use their “faith in evolution” to fill in the gaps for things they can’t prove. Right? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/9 "2006-12-02T05:08:07Z")
[QUOTE=Harri] So, it still seems that scientists use their “faith in evolution” to fill in the gaps for things they can’t prove. Right? [/QUOTE] Preference for a scientific theory supported by persuasive but not entirely complete empirical evidence over a religious hypothesis with no basis but an appeal to authority is not “faith” in the sense you are using the term. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the existence of a creator-God is a **much** more extraordinary claim than anything in biological evolution. The only “missing link” is inside the heads of creationists. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/10 "2006-12-02T05:09:09Z")
The problem with saying there are “gaps in the evolutionary chain” is that you would need literally a fossil from at least one member of each successive generation in order for there to be no gaps. That’s never going to happen. Faith in evolution is the wrong way to put it. Scientists don’t say “Evolution is fact”. They say “Evolution is a theory - here is the very, very strong evidence for it”. Scientists don’t have faith in the evidence the have; it’s observable, it’s fact. And scientists don’t have faith in evolution being totally, 100% true, because they don’t say that. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/11 "2006-12-02T05:09:18Z")
[QUOTE=Harri] So, it still seems that scientists use their “faith in evolution” to fill in the gaps for things they can’t prove. Right? [/QUOTE] Yes, just like NASA uses their “faith in gravity” to launch rockets. You can still hold whatever religious views you want and still ‘believe’ in evolution. It’s not an either or choice unless you need to literally believe that god made humans out of mud or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/12 "2006-12-02T05:59:40Z")
[QUOTE=Harri] Thanks, the Wikipedia articles are interesting but I still notice this in there, too. “Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown.” So, it still seems that scientists use their “faith in evolution” to fill in the gaps for things they can’t prove. Right? [/QUOTE] No, not at all. Fact is, we can prove evolution without a single fossil. Fossils are mostly good for serving as direct, physical evidence for the existence of things scientists had inferred from other sources. You don’t need fossils to prove man “descended” from apes. Just _look_ at them. We share far too many physical characteristics for us not to be related. Plus, there’s all the DNA evidence. We share, what, 98% of our DNA with chimps? The nature of DNA and how it propagates can only mean that ultimatly, all life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. Apes and men simply share a much more recent ancestor than, say, apes and hummingbirds. But you can look at DNA, and at observable examples of speciation in nature, and say, “Clearly, life goes through gradual changes over the course of generations. Since humans are living beings, this must include them, as well. So, there must have been previous species that were human-like, but observably different from us.” Then the scientists go out a dig up a bunch of bones that, it turns out, belong to a human-like creature that’s very similar, but observably different from us. That’s how we know that evolution is real: we can make testable hypothesis from what we know for a fact, and without fail, those tests have always supported both the theory of evolution in general, and the familial relation between man and ape in specific. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/13 "2006-12-02T06:26:57Z")
[QUOTE=Harri] Thanks, the Wikipedia articles are interesting but I still notice this in there, too. “Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown.” So, it still seems that scientists use their “faith in evolution” to fill in the gaps for things they can’t prove. Right? [/QUOTE] Others have given other answers like it but science doesn’t work that way. Scientists take the information they have and build a theoretical model out of it. That model actually contains the information that would make it true or not true on some level for anyone that understands science to see. Just using fossils as evidence for human evolution, they fit new findings on an evolutionary map and then bring in addition fossils and start drawing lines and making inferences about the relationships between two beings that may have live 1 million years apart. They keep adding evidence and drawing more lines. Some of the original assumptions will undoubtly get changed and the model will be revised filled in and the process repeats. At this point, there aren’t any gaps that legitimately be called a “Missing Link”. The missing data points are small and a fairly linear line can often say that species A evolved into species C over time even if we know little about species B. This whole model is not in any danger of being rejected but there are still some data that needs to be add to the model. Keep in mind that the people doing this are numerous and they spend their lives studying one minute aspect of the big picture. SO, when you hear on the news that a very important fossil has been found, they may say that parts of the model need to be reworked but that is true for science that you acknowledge as a bedrock fact as well. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/14 "2006-12-02T06:53:11Z")
On the other hand, 150 years ago scientists didn’t have the evidentiary tools they have now, neither the fossils nor the understanding of genetics needed to explain the mechanisms of evolution. People like Darwin were left making the inferences **Miller** described and that seems to be the battle creationists and intelligent designists are still fighting. Scientists are long past that and they may come across as testy because most of the arguments made today were concluded _before they–or even their parents–were born,_ yet they are asked it over and over. It’s like baseball experts repeatedly facing people asking who was the greatest player ever: Grover Cleveland Alexander or Three-Finger Brown–the question today is so far from relevant to be laughable and after the 50th time it stops being something you can answer patiently. It is good the people here are more patient than baseball fans. Most of us still hope that ignorance can be fought to a successful conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/15 "2006-12-02T08:43:55Z")
I’m not sure there is really an infinite set of values between 0 and 1. Does anyone have the time to list them out for me so I don’t have to take it on faith? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/16 "2006-12-02T12:30:07Z")
> [@](#): > > So, it still seems that scientists use their “faith in evolution” to fill in the gaps for things they can’t prove. Right? I think it’s a telling point that when people want to disparage evolutionary science they try to imply it’s a religious belief and when they want to promote their religious beliefs they try to imply they’re a science. ---
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/17 "2006-12-02T13:35:40Z")
There have been many many more missing links discovered than were ever dreamed of when the term was created. What’s happening now is like when children don’t like losing a game of Monopoly and insist that unless you play 2 out of 3 that the result will remain undecided. They are smug they have found a loophole to losing, but nobody else is fooled. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/18 "2006-12-02T15:36:32Z")
[QUOTE=Harri] I guess I’m basically an agnostic . . . [/QUOTE] Man, talk about hedging your bets. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/19 "2006-12-02T18:07:31Z")
[QUOTE=dropzone] On the other hand, 150 years ago scientists didn’t have the evidentiary tools they have now, neither the fossils nor the understanding of genetics needed to explain the mechanisms of evolution. People like Darwin were left making the inferences **Miller** described and that seems to be the battle creationists and intelligent designists are still fighting. [/QUOTE] Actually, Charles Darwin did a massive amount of work (quite aside from his 'round-the-world voyage on _The Beagle_ and famous survey of the Galapagos Islands) which put both the natural process of evolution and his proposed mechanism of natural selection (i.e. selection via natural pressures on inherited characteristics) on a very solid footing. Moreso than any other scientist I can think of, he both proposed a ground-breaking hypothesis and provided manifest evidence of it. The single element mission from a complete underpinning of natural selction in Darwin’s time was a specific mechanism for the inheritance of characteristics; there was no way to explain how phenotypes could be transferred from one generation to the next. Had Gregor Mendel’s work been more widely published or known about in the circles of natural philosophy, Darwin would have had the answer (or at least a major portion of it) to that poser, and he died just before the discovery of mitosis by Walther Flemming in 1882, which would have provided the remainder of the answer, though the beginning of a detailed understanding of how genomes _work_ had to wait until Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and the sadly uncredited Rosalind Franklin. As many others have already noted, there is essentially no missing link in the fossil record regarding the development from our primitive ape forebearers to _H. sapiens sapiens_, although there is still considerable debate as to which primitive forms are alternate branches which became extinct and which are in our direct lineage. The record isn’t utterly complete, of course, no do we have any expectation that we’ll have every developmental step and graduation in speciation, but we have enough and then some to establish anatomical modification and cranial development at a resolution of about 250kyr intervals or less. This, combined with more recent discoveries and advances in molecular genetics puts evolutionary biology on par with any of the “hard” physical sciences in terms of validation. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563/20 "2006-12-02T18:30:35Z")
RE gaps in the fossil record It has been pointed out that if you have fossil A which appears to have evolved into fossil B, you have a gap, and look for the “missing link”. If fossil AB is subsequently found, instead of closing the gap, some people feel that you have created two gaps instead, one from A to AB, and another from AB to B. Therefore, there will never be a complete, unbroken line from A to B, since each transitional fossil, by definition, must necessarily be different from both preceeding and following forms. Obviously, this is more theoretical than practical. In a practical sense, decreasing distance between forms and time of their existence strengthens the argument that there is a relationship, but there is no satisfying some people. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-missing-link-in-science-versus-evolution/382563.md?page=2)