| I just read the wiki article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolutio... So it seems that the name "missing link" has gone out of favor because it implies a linear evolution instead of branches. But in a branch you can still have missing links I would say. So I feel the scientists just didn't like that there was a term made up for something they can't explain yet. And the various solutions to the missing link story turned out to not fit or be a hoax, so I guess that is what you mean by "has been made up". The wiki article says at the end of the introduction: "There is no singular missing link. The scarcity of transitional fossils can be attributed to the incompleteness of the fossil record." So there is not a singular missing link, but there are multiple missing links! What a smart way to sweep this issue under the rug. And then we can also say that there was never any evidence for the missing link. Which funnily enough is the whole problem, that there isn't any evidence for a species before human sapiens which would explain our evolutionary connection with another primate species. If evidence for this missing link would be found, or evidence that would make the missing link unnecessary, I think it would be big news, not go unnoticed and that we find out from our children. I guess they want our children to think that there are not really any big issues with our current theories. Like they did with us when we were children. |