[smokeman]

It wasn't creationists who started the missing link issue, it was scientists. It is a valid point whether you want to acknowledge it or not. And to date, the missing link between man and ape has not been discovered. Last I heard, Piltdown man was the candidate, but that fell on its face. I also heard Lucy was a candidate but that was also disproven.

[bobdsmith]

I also heard Lucy was a candidate but that was also disproven.

How was Lucy disproven? (this should be good)

[bobhoskins]

It wasn't creationists who started the missing link issue, it was scientists. It is a valid point whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I hope I wasn;t giving the impression I didn;t want to acknowledge it. Part of the whole idea of transition is that there was, well, a transition.

And to date, the missing link between man and ape has not been discovered. Last I heard, Piltdown man was the candidate, but that fell on its face. I also heard Lucy was a candidate but that was also disproven.

Oh, I hope that link I retried to set up actually worked ...

You'll have to ask yourself, then, how many "missing links" would be needed. If you find someting between "ape" and "human", say "apeman" ... you then have to find a link between "apeman" and "human". Is there a certain number of links you need? An uninterrupted family history, every child of every child? Or would an ape-like, human-like hybrid at some point in between be close enough.

And even then, it would not "prove" evolution.

As for the Piltdown man, I believe TOE is well beyond that one.