Is the term missing link in evolution misleading?

Creationists love the missing link. It's fully imaginary and so can never be disproved.. Generally the 'missing link" is 'half man, half best the stalks the people of the small village.." Sorry, started channeling those "B" movies with such a monster. In our lineage there are 20 or so ancestors. creationists love to demand they be shown a missing link between each. With each new discovery the press loves to write "Has the missing link be found?" To many the 'missing link" goes like this. A band of chimpanzees start birthing missing links. Then the next generation, the missing links start birthing humans.Simple really from chimp to human in three generations. The reality is species change slowly over time.The first homo sapien sapien (in other words humans of today) was born of two parents. Just how that first human differed from his parents wouldn't be obvious.Most likely it would have to be a judgment call on whomever was making the determination. Look at it this way. Somewhere one changes from an child to an adult. Is there a 'missing link" required? Better, can we agree on the exact point where someone becomes and adult? Graduation? Age 18? Age 21? Marriage, ??? Go back to our 20 odd ancestors that make up our lineage. Do we really need a missing link? The fact is the species slowly changed and a new one appeared. No big rush or major changes. There were small changes in individuals that spread through the species until a new species appeared.

It is in the respect that it implies a lack of confidence in the theory of evolution. There is nothing missing in the fossil record. It's just undiscovered. It's on the planet, it didn't learn how to escape gravity and disappear into space. So there is nothing missing as it were, there is plenty of evidence to support the theory and nothing to support any other theory. It's like the difference between a reasonable doubt and any doubt at all. Unless you see it with your own eyes, there can always be doubt if you don't trust or understand what you are studying. In fact, vision trumps all other senses in humans, we are that dependent on our eyes to understand our environment.

It is not surprising that evolutionists might squirm when talking about missing links. it is not misleading at all. There are links missing between all major groups which evolutionists claim are related. The fossils do not show evidence for evolution. Darwin admitted this himself as being one of the major problems with his theory. He expected that many more fossils would be found that would support his idea of common descent. He hoped that many 'transitional' fossils would be found. If evolution were true then we would expect to find a vast array of transitional fossils. In fact one would barely expect to see recognizable animals and plants in the fossil record. The truth is that the fossil records is one of stasis and extinction. Allegedly ancient fossil creatures are either nigh on identical to living creatures, or they are extinct. The fact that there are fossils of extinct animals, is not evidence of evolution, it is evidence of extinction. There are a handful of controversial 'transitional' fossils. Certainly not enough to validate the idea of evolution. Furthermore, representative all almost all plant and animal groups are found in the *same* rock layers as dinosaurs. From sea urchins, to frogs to mammals to birds. The idea that there was an ‘age of the dinosaurs’ is quite false. What we do observe is natural selection and variation. What is misleading is that some people choose to call this evolution, when it is quite different to the alleged molecule-to-man evolution. We all agree that NS and variation occur. It is observable and scientific. But we only observe change within existing genetic information. There is no mechanism to create *new* information. Mutations are claimed as the mechanism, but they are information neutral or harmful. Information is the big problem for evolution, and it is very misleading that evolutionists try to paper over this chasm in their idea, by using the word evolution to mean quite different things. There is a lot of misinformation put about regarding fossils. Contrary to popular claims, they do not show progressive change. Some people choose to read progressive change into fossils based on their assumptions. The fossil horse record is a case in point. The nice progression from small to large that one sees in text books and museums *does not exist* except in text books and museums. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks,’4 and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture ‘lamentable’5 and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology.’6 As shown in a detailed thesis by Walter Barnhart,7 the horse ‘series’ is an interpretation of the data. He documents how different pictures of horse evolution were drawn by different evolutionists from the same data, as the concept of evolution itself ‘evolved.’ http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/308

There is a missing link between monkey and man.It was not possible to find out a monkey without tail or a man with tail.No fossil also found.