Missing Link and Living Fossil
Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 13th, 2010
The word “missing link” has been thrown around a lot lately.
John Hawks has a good short post about the term “missing link” that is well worth reading.
For more on the continuing debate about the use of the word “missing link,” see here and here.
MANADO, May 10, 2009 (Xinhua) — Photo taken on May 10, 2009 shows the fossil of a coelacanth displayed at the Grand Kawanua Convention Center in Manado, Indonesia. Coelacanth, known as the living fossil, is the common name for an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of jawed fish known to date. The coelacanths were believed to have gone extinct some 70-80 million years ago until a live specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa in 1938. Since then these fish have been found and caught in Madagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, the Comoros and Indonesia. (Photo: Yue Yuewei)
This post was written by
Loren Coleman no longer writes for Cryptomundo. His archived posts remain here at Cryptomundo.
I must maintain that terms like these represent a failure of scientists to adhere to the scientific method. Instead they invest in extant theory despite evidence to the contrary for non-scientific reasons.
The term “missing link” implies that a link not in evidence must indeed exist. Scientists have become so attached to orthodox evolutionary theory that they no longer question why there is not evidence of intermediary forms in a particular circumstance. As a result we are repeatedly treated to oversold attempts to fill these flaws in theory, sometimes on the basis of very equivocal or inadequate specimens.
The “living fossil” likewise shows up the slipshod attention to appropriate process. It is assumed that the animal cannot exist today, so it must be an anomaly. Again, no serious attempt to examine the assumptions that do not match the evidence. Just sweep it under the rug and keep going.
Modern science likes to pretend it has all the answers. Worse, they have adopted a view that neatly places the scientist at the apex of life on earth. Admitting otherwise reduces the status of the scientist and threatens to impeach his worldview. It also compels him to ignore the anecdotal and cultural evidence for wild men around the world. Our passion here suggests that evolution doesn’t quite work in the neat, clean way orthodox science wants it to.