Talk:Missing link

Intelligent Design

Yeah, those comments are gonna get deleted... -- Jbamb 04:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with 'Transitional Fossil'

Would anyone object if I or anyone else tried to integrate the contents of this page with Transitional fossil? They are basically dealing with the same thing and any nuance differences can be explained on the single page. I am proposing a redirect. Fedor 22:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I insist that this article be merged with Transitional fossil! The term 'Missing Link', though having a popular appeal, is antiquated and misleading as it suggests that the links are still 'missing', when in fact they are being found. Besides many of the international wiki-links direct to the same articles as the ones on Transitional fossil... Fedor 09:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the "Missing Link" article, as it stands, is lacking, but I do believe that is an appriopriate place to include information on the popular concept and misconceptions about human evolution. The Trasitional fossil article, meanwhile, should be the general and the purely scientific. While the "missing link" is a type of transitional fossil, tranitional fossil is not a synonym for the missing link. ~CS 05:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The concept of "Missing Link" is in my opinion too hollow to deserve a whole article of its own. It could of course be described as a section under Transitional fossil. The popular term is clearly used as a full synonym for Transitional fossil. When a "Missing Link" is reported in the press, it always refers to a newly discovered Transitional fossil. Therefore, I see no reason why not to merge. Fedor 15:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the term missing link referred fairly specifically to a species linking ancient and modern apes in the evolution of man. As this article stands, perhaps a it could be merged, but I feel that this is because the article currently is too broad. I'm no archaeologist, and I do not know whether or not such a significant gap in the fossil record still exists (probably not), but to the best of my knowledge the term missing link refers to a concept narrower than that described in the article. I'm not saying we should redircet to bigfoot or something, but I do feel that missing link deserves its own separate entry. Shaggorama 11:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments, but I know that 'missing link' is broader than just the transition from ape to man. Besides, this has nothing to do with archeology, but is a topic of interest of paleontology. Unless anyone can show that 'missing link' is in any way narrower than 'transitional form', the pages should be merged. Fedor 00:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "missing link" is narrower than the phrase "transitional form" because it refers to a "transitional form that has not yet been found". Moreover, the phrase "missing link" is not a good scientific phrase since it carries with it some assumptions that need not be true. The diagram included in this article illustrates nicely that "missing link" is something that does not have a constant meaning. In contrast, a "transitional form" will always remain a "transitional form" and is thus a much better scientific term. I think that whoever is looking up the phrase "missing link" would be helped by an article that points out these issues. (Jan 5, 2006).

This can all better be explained in the article about Transitional form, to keep it central instead of having two separate article about basically the same thing. BTW the term is not narrower than Transitional form, because every time it is used, it is referring to a form that has just been found! So a missing link has always been found, and so has a transitional fossil! I will soon attempt the merge now, unless there are convincing arguments presented against it... Fedor 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)