The fact that such an invalid and misleading term as “missing link” is still around just goes to show how successful Creationists have been in their campaign to cause unnecessary confusion. There are several reasons why the term “missing link” is so invalid.

Firstly, it implies that it’s actually possible to find every stage of development when in fact, considering how smooth the transitions were, this would be as impossible as trying to take a photo of every stage of development in a person’s life - it doesn’t matter how many photos you take, there will always be “gaps” in between any two particular photos.

Secondly, (and presuming you could actually find every “link”) it implies that there is no reason why we shouldn’t have discovered every “link”, when we are actually quite lucky to have discovered any at all considering how specific the environment and circumstances need to be for fossilisation to occur.

Thirdly, the term “missing link” gives the false impression that there is some sort of question mark still hanging over the validity of evolution.

In regards to “smoking guns”, well, there have been more smoking guns than we could count really. This is simply one more that we can add to the mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution.

To answer the question though, no, there is nothing that will convince MOST Creationists. I’ve done a lot of debating with Creationists (as futile as it is), and one thing I’ve learned is that (in most cases) Creationism is actually a mental retardation of sorts.

I did a bit of Googling to see if I could find any information on the Creationist mindset, and although I was shocked to see how little real study had gone into this phenomenon that still has me baffled (I guess it’s because we’re not supposed to question faiths simply because they’re someone’s ‘faith’), I did find a bit written by a Reverend who is apparently a mental health Chaplain.

Continued...

...Continued

This Reverend refers to Creationism as a “thinking disorder” and gives a good analogy comparing Creationism with anorexia...

“It is rather like dealing with anorexics; thin people who are convinced they need to lose weight, to the point of putting themselves at risk. Plonk them on scales and the scales are wrong. Show them their emaciated reflection in a mirror and they will still see a plump person. Reason with them and you are part of the conspiracy to make them obese. While anorexia is normally referred to as an eating disorder it is also, clearly, a form of mental illness, whose victims can be sectioned and force-fed to keep them alive – which they will interpret as cruelty. Anorexia is something that happens to other people; they are perfectly normal.” (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cre_thinking_disorder.htm)

I’m just thankful that when I was a Creationist, I had the curiosity to eventually look into the evidence for evolution, and the sanity to accept what I found. Most are not that lucky and are happy to live in their own little bubble of ignorance and make assertions without knowing, or even wanting to know any of the evidence

Here, allow me to demonstrate...

Runner,

Could you please state why the evidence mentioned in the article is incorrect?

Philo,

<<Darwin never understood the complexity of the single cell and assumed that by basic reasoning that similar skeletal structures had similar ancestors.>>

Now with DNA and an extensive fossil record, we can confirm that his “basic reasoning that similar skeletal structures had similar ancestors” was absolutely correct.

<<There is a level of intelligence in the design of the cell that is impossible for science to replicate life from basic inanimate chemicals.>>

Yes, impossible now. But since you seem to know that it will always be impossible, then perhaps you could answer a few questions for me...

1. Is it impossible for nucleotides to have formed in the primordial Earth’s montmorillonite clay?
2. Is it impossible for nucleotides to join together to form polynucleotides?
3. Is it impossible for polynucleotides to become RNA?
4. Is it impossible for RNA to become DNA?
5. Is it impossible for DNA to attract lipids that form a protective membrane?

Which of these steps is impossible, Philo?

Oh, and one other thing. Complexity does not imply design. Complexity in design arises from either necessity or sloppiness, and a supreme being would not be sloppy, nor would they need to design life to be so unnecessarily complex.

AJ Philips,
The fact a humanoid type creature was found does not prove it was actually a genetic ancestor of modern man. It can only be presented as a theory, not a fact. It may be resultant of another stream.

Genetic information cannot be added to single cell creatures to create more complex species unless external design forces are involved. when this is fully demonstrated by intelligent science minds, then I must uphold intelligent design. Natural environment is not a breeding house for the complexity of species, or the formation of a single living cell. It is as rational as the primitive theory that sour milk can of itself create maggots; which is the level of rational thought used by Darwinians.

Anorexia, is an excellent example of a thinking disorder despite visual and physical evidence to the contrary.

I was always naturally thin - a size 8 in my teens, I'll never forget a girl my age who was a friend of a friend in our camping group. I had been warned that she was recently recovered from anorexia - yet her view of herself and others was still distorted. Camped by a swimming hole this young girl had forgotten her bikini - I had a spare which I knew would fit - if a little loose, she was still painfully thin. When I offered it to her she wanted to refuse saying, that it would be too small for her. I guess the desire to swim won out, and she joined the rest of us for a swim. Interestingly though, even though the bikini had fitted, she would not look me in the eye or even talk to me after I told her how good she looked in the bikini.

For Creationists to accept much of what is obvious to the rest of us would be to destroy their entire being. Which is appalling and a further indictment of the bad that can come from religious belief.

AJ PhIIIps

Did you cease belief in Creationism as an adult? If so, power to you, it cannot have been easy.

Look at Runner, he can only justify himself by insulting others who do not agree with him. Extreme case.

What I find difficult to figure is people like Philo - who appears to have some ability for deduction and reason, but nonetheless can't even accept the moderate Christian POV that his god set the elements of the universe in motion, thus leading to evolution.

AJ Philips,
Just read the Genesis account Genesis 3: 19 and you learn man was actually formed from the chemistry of the Earth - no new theory, just an understanding of a reality that has been presented for 5,000 years.

1. Is it impossible for nucleotides to have formed in the primordial Earth’s montmorillonite clay?
2. Is it impossible for nucleotides to join together to form polynucleotides?
3. Is it impossible for polynucleotides to become RNA?
4. Is it impossible for RNA to become DNA?
5. Is it impossible for DNA to attract lipids that form a protective membrane?

Nothing is impossible for God.