Those believing in evolution have had a difficult time coming up with "missing links" from the fossil record.  A recently touted missing link is named Ida, or Darwinius masillae, in honor of Darwin as well as the site where the fossil was found.  It was announced ahead of time, but kept under wraps.  When it was unveiled, it was a major press event, and claims were made on television that this was a missing link in the human ancestry.  Wikipedi makes an appropriate comment about this media crazed event: "Concerns have been raised about the claims made about the fossil's relative importance, and the publicising of the fossil before adequate information was available for scrutiny by the academic community."¹  It is obvious that it resembles the lemur of today.  Whether or not it represents a missing link for primates is already being debated.

An even more recently touted "missing link" is Ardi, or Ardipithecus ramidus, whose scattered remains were painstakingly unearthed in Ethiopia during the dry seasons of 1993-1995.  Wikipedia has a good synopsis.²  As usual, many inferences have been made on behalf of that great fountainhead, Darwin.  Sketches, fantastic reports of mating rituals, and all the incredible fiction that goes along with such "finds" have been presented.  It also is a major media event.  What can be said with reasonable certainty is that Ardi is the oldest hominid skeleton found so far according to the questionable dating techniques used.  Look closely and you may see the resemblance of an ape.  A response from a creationist is also available to read.³

Unfortunately, concerning the evolution of man, the devotees of evolution have found it difficult to present a believable "missing link."  Through the years, excitement followed by disappointment have occurred repeatedly.  The Nebraska Man ⁴ was extrapolated from a single tooth, but was received by the scientific community with grave reservation, and cannot be seriously considered.   The Java Man was touted to be the missing link in 1891 by it finder, Dr. Eugene Dubois.  The evidence consisted of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thighbone, and three molar teeth. Whether these fossils even came from the same animal is uncertain.  Clearly the evidence is very weak. especially considering that Dubois found human skulls in the same dig, but did not choose to make that fully known.⁵  The Piltdown Man was the most famous paleontological hoax, and it took 40 years to uncover the hoax.⁶  The Neanderthal Man shared similar body dimensions and 99.5% of the DNA of Homo sapiens, and many regard these fossils as human.⁷  Lucy was 3.5 feet tall, had a small head and appeared to walk on two feet habitually.⁸  As exciting as these may sound to some, it is difficult to agree that any of these represent missing links.  Rather, they appear to represent either men, apes, or neither.

What about the other species?  Is there convincing evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record?  Phillip Eichman has done a survey of these presentations, and offers this perspective:

    The lack of transitional fossils seems to be one of the best kept secrets regarding the theory of evolution.  Evolutionists sometimes refer to transitions, but the evidence is often as scarce as the fossils themselves.
    A quick survey of a few college-level biology textbooks located the following examples: mollusks (snails) from Lake Turkana in Kenya, Archaeopteryx (a fossil bird with certain reptilian characteristics), mammal skulls, and a possible ancestor of modern whales (Ambulocetus).  Textbooks on evolution were found to contain a few more examples: ammonites (extinct cephalopods), diatoms, foraminifera, radiolarians, certain mammal species, and other mollusks.  The horse fossil sequence and Archaeopteryx were also mentioned in another textbook.
    Most of these examples of speciation or other small-scale change (i.e., microevolution).  Others, such as Archaeopteryx, the "horse sequence," and the whale "ancestor" potentially involve larger scale changes.  Even these examples, however, leave us with major gaps and numerous unanswered questions regarding the fossil record and the theory of evolution.⁹

We should be clear about this: If Darwin's Theory is correct, we should be able to find a well defined trail of fossils that clearly show the gradual, very slow change of distant ancestors to man.  Simply put, there are no convincing transitional forms to show this.  In the years since Darwin published his theory, the fossil record has become very robust, with millions of fossils found and evaluated thoroughly.  Unfortunately for Darwin's theory, the fossil record continues to show an "absence or rarity of transitional forms."  The only objective witness that could substantiate Darwin's theory is the fossil record, but it does not do so.  Rather than showing the slow and obvious evolution of all species from common ancestors, the fossil record shows the sudden appearance and disappearance of species, without transitional forms.  True, Darwin argued that transitional forms might be difficult to find, but to not find any convincing forms after 150 years is really quite damaging for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Given this, I remain amazed that Darwin's theory is now taught as fact, and that advancement in the field of Biology is contingent upon demonstrating full faith in Darwin's Theory of Evolution as fact as well as repudiation of the idea that God created all of life.  This is the supreme example of the scientific method gone astray and misused to force a cultural agenda.