Have you seen a newspaper headline announcing a fossil discovery in terms of the “missing link” having been found? In that case you can be 100% certain that the report you are reading is of absolutely no scientific value. The reason is simple: serious scientists decades ago accepted that the idea of a “missing link” and the evolutionary story-telling based on fossils are unscientific, and abandoned the use of the term.
Henry Gee, a palaeontologist and editor of Nature, one of the world”s most prestigious scientific journals, writes about this fact in his 1999 book In Search of Deep Time:
Given the ubiquitous chatter of journalists and headline writers about the search for ancestors, and the discovery of missing links, it may come as a surprise to learn that most professional palaeontologists do not think of the history of life in terms of scenarios or narratives, and that they rejected the storytelling mode of evolutionary history as unscientific more than thirty years ago. 1
Missing link reports are intended to give the impression that confirmation of the hypothesis that species evolved from other species is just a matter of discovery. Yet excavations carried out for over a century have all defeated the expectation that intermediate forms among species would be turned up. For example, one eminent palaeontologist, A. S. Romer, admitted this fact and stated back in 1963 that:
“Links” are missing just where we most fervently desire them and it is all too probable that many “links” will continue to be missing. 2
Palaeontologists are still keeping the missing links on the missing list and their admissions are in total contrast to the kind of impression that some media organisations try to create. These words by Niles Eldredge from American Museum of National History, one of the world”s most eminent palaeontologists, and Ian Tattersall, again from the American Museum of Natural History lack any trace of the optimistic tone adopted by the media:
It is a myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery. If this were true, one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything, the opposite has occurred. 3
To summarize, the missing link is not a matter of discovery, it is a long-dead idea for palaeontologists and has no place in the realm of scientific investigation.
Why Is This Unscientific Myth Being Propagandised So Determinedly?
The answer to this question concerns the world view that the theory of evolution, itself connected to the idea of the missing link, represents. Ever since Darwin”s theory of evolution was first proposed in the 19th century, materialists have sought with all their might and main to keep it alive. That is because although the theory is based on a totally illusory scenario, it offered a scientific-seeming account of how living things came into being that materialists could support.
The evolutionist thinker Mary Midgley expressed this fact saying that the theory of evolution is “our creation-myth. … it tells us how we got here, we expect it to tell us what we are.” 4
At the end of his book Life on Earth, the Darwinist biologist Edward O. Wilson makes the following admission on the subject of the evolutionary claims he makes in the book:
Every generation needs its own creation myths, and these are ours. 5
“Missing link” propaganda, the evolutionist fairy tale of how life came into being indicated by Midgley and Wilson, is a deception maintained so that it can be kept alive in society. Evolutionary propaganda is the number one vehicle used by materialists to keep their world view alive. The concept of the missing link is a key concept with regard to the imaginary common ancestors promised by Darwin”s theory. Materialists therefore hope that the more they can keep this concept fresh before the public eye, the more grounds of support they will gather for their beliefs. That is the reason for the dissemination of the lie, by means of missing link headlines, that Darwin”s promise has come true, that the intermediate forms assumed by his theory have been found in the fossil record.
Despite the best endeavours of one section of the media, the fossils announced with missing link headlines are neither missing links nor is there anything about them to confirm Darwin”s theory. These reports consist of unscientific speculation about new fossils belonging to extinct species. This unscientific propaganda can never alter the truth: even evolutionist scientists admit that the idea of the missing link has no scientific foundation and that there is no trace of intermediate forms in the fossil record.
1) Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. , 1999, p. 5
2) A.S. Romer, chapter in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution (1963), p. 114
3) Niles Eldredge, Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, pp. 126-127
4) M. Midgley M., “Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears,” , Methuen: London, 1986. p. 178; Stephen E. Jones’ Home Page. http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe03rlg2.html
5) E.O. Wilson et. al., Life on Earth, , Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1975, Third Printing, p. 624