A missing link has been found, bearing characteristics of both humans and primates:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/two-boys-close-the-evolutionary-gap/story-e6frg8y6-1225851599690

"Asked yesterday whether the find was the missing link between apes and humans, Professor Berger said that although he did not approve of the simplistic term, it appeared the species was "transitional", with a mosaic of characteristics shared by later hominins from the genus Homo and earlier hominins from the genus Australopithecus.
Professor Berger described the pelvic structure as "very advanced and very human-like".
"They could still climb trees - that was very clear with those long arms - but they were very competent walking bipeds on the ground," he said.

---

Science rarely deals in absolutes. The scientist above quite rightly shies away from such a simplistic term as a 'missing link' because it pigeonholes and simplifies an issue that is far from simple.

I used the term "a" missing link, because this issue has never been about a smoking gun. The point is, there are many different kinds of bipedal, human-like creatures that have existed, be they offshoots such as neanderthals or even more distant relatives such as the various kinds of Australopithecus.

My point isn't to ignite the creation vs evolution debate again, though no doubt that will happen too (and when it happens can we try to remain civil and at least attempt to utilize some degree of logic in discussions?).

My question is thus: is there any point where evidence would be so overwhelming, where people with any degree of rationality could no longer reject it outright, or at the very least, modify the more simplistic traditional creationist fables to be more inclusive of legitimate (as opposed rejecting evidence contrary to their hypothesis) scientific enquiry?

What would qualify in the world of science, as a "smoking gun" as it were?

TRTL
You asked "...is there any point where evidence would be so overwhelming, where people with any degree of rationality could no longer reject it outright, or at the very least, modify the more simplistic traditional creationist fables to be more inclusive of legitimate (as opposed rejecting evidence contrary to their hypothesis) scientific enquiry?"

Answer: No I don't think there is a critical turning point for some.

Many creationists are so entrenched even hitting them over the head with a mallet of evidence will produce no result. Any 'evidence' will be seen as tainted, corrupt or false in the face of faith based belief.

Dear TRTL,

You ask about the "missing link?" and
what evidence would sway creationists?

I don't think that any evidence is
going to sway some people. Especially those
who believe that human beings were created
in the image of God and thus were elevated
above all other forms of life. These people
will find it difficult to reconcile their
views with the concept that life on earth
has evolved through natural processes.

However, many people accept the basic principles
of evolution within the framework of their religious
beliefs. These are people who interpret the story
of Creation as a symbolic, rather than literal
account of the origin of human beings and other
living things. These people don't find this
symbolic interpretation incompatible with the
findings of evolutionary biologists. For these people,
the idea that human beings evolved from lower forms
of life does not diminish the uniqueness of human
capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilizations.

So, in answer to your question - it all depends on
what you believe, and how strongly you believe it.

TRTL

While I am thrilled at the news of the discovery of near complete fossilised humanoid skeletons, I concur with Pelican and Foxy that this is not sufficient evidence to convince creationist believers.

The arguments put forth by fundamentalist believers reveal little to zero understanding of scientific procedures, genetic mapping, plate tectonics, even the time in the millions of earth years that it takes light from other suns, solar systems and galaxies to reach our planet to be observed in the sky.

That is why we call believe in religion 'faith' - no evidence or rational thinking required.

;Missing link? What evidence would sway creationists?'

A little honest observation instead of missing link number 5005. What a load of crap. Talk about desperate attempts to prove a fantasy. This sort of 'evidence' makes s scientist look very silly indeed. The gullible god deniers are so so desperate to find what does not exist that they will continue to pervert science in order to prove their fallacy

WTF?

I would be content to let these creationist crazies wallow in their own ignorance except that they are now able to wield significant political clout. Just like in the bible belt of the good old US of A politicians do not want to upset the fundamentalist loopies.

We live in a society that allows schools to pander to the “there are no wrong answers” liberal arts movement.

This has allowed many to believe that we have to accept any and every interpretation (sorry every constructed knowledge) regardless of how rigorously that knowledge has been acquired.