Talk:Missing link (human evolution)

I say there isn’t any type of missing link showing any type of transfer of one species to another I’m not denying micro evolution but definitely denying Marco evolution change my mind. 2601:649:1:C320:4172:4D57:14DD:582C (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A standard example is Tiktaalik.
See also RationalWiki on this well-worn creationist talking point. It's a PRATT. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few manual reverts

I've done and am planning to do a few reverts of old edits, which in my mind lowered the standard of this article.

  1. @Daniel.enam7: I manually reverted the content parts of your two edits from 2019-07-02, which were declared minor edits and hidden by a claim that they were only fixing some grammar stuff.
  2. Likewise, I reverted part of this good faith edit from 2022-08-19 by the IP 69.126.125.131. I think it was based on a misunderstanding. The qualifier hypothetical refers to a link which was then (when the term was coined) not known. Since then, indeed, a large number of intermediate forms have been found. (This perhaps should be clarified a bit better.)
  3. I intend to manually revert (at least parts of) these 2024-02-16 edits by the IP 193.6.168.205, if the text isn't clarified and/or sourced within some time. These edits indeed were supposed to clarify; but I find the (supposedly factual) explanation "evolutionary trees only have data at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference and not evidence of fossils" just confusing. (It seems to say that some type of genetical analysis does not prove that fossiles exist; but the existence of fossiles I think is undisputed. So, what was it supposed to say?) There was also an unsourced claim that there is a difference between geneticists and biologists, where the formers but not the latter accept the term "missing link". I doubt this; but shall accept it, if it is sourced. Finally, there was an added sentence indicating that factually the scarcity of preserved fossiles would support an intelligent design alternative. I think that a further referenced claim that (some or most) ID adherents argue this to be true could be added later in the article; but just as their claim, not as an actual fact.

@Jharton07: I hope such edits will satisfy your {{Cn}} from July 2023.

@Chiswick Chap: I fear that my edits also modified some of your (much younger) formulations. Please put back or elsewise modify what you feel should be modified! JoergenB (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.