Evolutionists love to tout the supposedly undeniable proof of their theory. However, when this proof is demanded of them, their response is lacking. Today we will be discussing the missing links. Obviously we cannot discuss all of the fossils which have been proposed as potential missing links over the years. Instead we will cite some of the more common examples used by evolutionists to promote their theory. We will also consider why evolutionists have so much trouble producing a valid missing link.
Officially termed by scientists as transitional fossils, missing links are a common buzz phrase in the origins argument. As such, they make frequent appearances in both Creationist and Evolutionist literature. Perhaps the most common example of a transitional fossil cited in evolutionist literature is Archaeopteryx. There are multiple fossils of this creature and they are commonly suggested as a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. On the face of it, this is not a bad comparison. Archaeopteryx has features of both birds and reptiles. However, there are huge issues with using this creature as a transitional form. The first being that evolutionists have dated birds which should be descendants of Archaeopteryx as being older than it. In other words, the grandchildren are older than the grandparents. This should not be evolutionarily possible. The second issue is the feathers. There have been suggestions that the feather imprints were faked but supposing they aren’t, evolutionists still have the problem of where the feathers came from. How could feathers develop from scales? The only thing they have in common is their protein make-up, keratin. Feathers would appear to be more closely akin to hair than they would scales. Evolutionists love to point out that Archaeopteryx had teeth, something no modern bird has. However, numerous fossilized birds do have teeth and numerous reptiles do not. Teeth is by no means a determining factor. Archaeopteryx is best regarded as an extinct bird.
A second set of commonly cited transitional forms are the Australopithecus genus, generally A. afarensis in particular. The famed “Lucy” fossil is an example of this kind of organism. The problems with using this as a transitional fossil are multiple. “Lucy” is generally portrayed as standing upright. However, evolutionary researchers have admitted that Lucy’s knee, which was discovered, is much more compatible with life in the trees, than walking upright. Even worse, both the hands and feet of Lucy are much more ape like than human like, with long curved fingers and toes. The hip socket bones of the “Lucy” specimen had been shattered into over forty pieces before being discovered and fragments are missing. When the researchers reassembled it, they attempted to show that it could have been the basis of bipedal locomotion. However, since the hip socket was not intact, and assembly instructions did not come buried in the dirt with it, the reconstruction is based purely on imagination and is not necessarily correct. The Australopithecus thus should best be regarded as an extinct ape genera.
A third commonly cited form of evolutionary transitional fossils involves the great whales. Evolutionists claim that whales went back into the water after their ancestors came out of it. Their commonly cited example is Pakicetus but there are numerous fossils on the evolutionary chain of development. Pakicetus is merely the supposed starting point. The problem here is that what was originally portrayed as a Pakicetus fossil ancestral to whales is a skull and a lot of imagination. The skull was found turned out to belong to a hooved mammal without a blowhole, flippers or any other whale like traits. Ambulocetus , the next fossil in the tree is just as bad. Frequently portrayed as having a blowhole, there is no fossil evidence of such. Furthermore, the inner ear bone, like Pakicetus, is nothing like a whales ear. Rhodocetus is next in line and it gets even worse for evolutionists here. In what appears to be a deliberate deception, Rhodocetus is portrayed in museums as having flippers and tail flukes despite there being completely contrary fossil evidence. These three abject failures alone destroy the evolutionists chain of whale development.
Why do evolutionists have so much difficulty producing a missing link that is valid? A creationist answer is that there are no missing links to find. As a corollary to that, evolutionists are desperate to find support for their floundering theory and thus try to jam fossils into evolutionary trees of life if there is any possibility they might fit. The whale tree discussed above is the perfect example of that. However the more important issue is why evolutionists are so desperate. The late Dr. Colin Patterson, the lead paleontologist for the British Museum of Natural History admitted the reason for this in a response to a reader of one of his books asking why no transitional forms were discussed in it. “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.” In other words, one of the worlds premier experts on fossils, who, if anyone, should have known of the existence of transitional forms, said that he was unaware of any. This is the reason behind the desperation. The real fossil experts in evolution, when they are honest with themselves, know that there are no transitional forms, no matter how much they try to deceive the public. This knowledge breeds desperation because the only alternative to evolution is some form of intelligent design, which evolution was formulated specifically to eliminate.