There is nothing wrong with any of these terms unless they are used in place of a fact, especially when that "fact" is later used as a foundation for further speculative ideas.

THE MISSING LINK HAS BEEN FOUND!

Is evolution good for science? Although, in the quote above,  Asimov wasn't talking about modern evolutionists, the idea still rings true. In the search for verification of evolutionary ideas they cannot help making some actual discoveries. But discovering something you can't prove with science doesn't count.

Evolutionists create billions of years of history based on assumptions, guesses, interpretations and belief. Is this good for science? Essentially evolutionary stories take the same course as would an elaborate lie. A story is made up about an event that cannot be verified.
When evidence comes along that exposes the story for what it is, fiction, more details are added to make it sound plausible again. The details grow, the story deepens and the view gets complicated enough to require an expert to decipher.

The book "LIFE: Evolution Explained" (2007) By Philip Whitfield is a typical example of the books that are being offered to the general public under the guise of a scientific story of evolution. The poorly edited but beautifully illustrated book is riddled with evolutionary fiction.  It uncritically examines the story of evolution and, like many other books on evolution, it presents the stories without a hint that science has not yet proven the "facts" behind them. The book contains hundreds of references to assumed evolutionary events and uses uncertainty words and phrases very liberally.  Of the 200 pages in the book uncertainty words occurred more than 330 times. This does not include the many times that an evolutionary event was assumed and presented as fact where no facts could possibly exist. A list of words used in the book provides a fairly extensive list of "missing science" words and phrases that indicate where science is missing in the story of evolution. (See the list of words used to fill in the place of missing science.)


Picture the story of evolution like a chain. Each link in the chain should be forged by science. Each part of the story that cannot be supported by science is considered a "missing link."  How much science is really missing from the story of evolution?
 
There is no doubt that a very credible story can be woven that incorporates many facts that science has discovered. But are the links that connect the data made of science as well?  How many evolutionary "facts" are based on events that no one witnessed, that left no mark or where details are said to have been "erased?" How many links really are "missing?" More importantly, are they missing because they haven't been found or because they were never there?

The key words and phrases to look for in science literature are, "maybe", "might have", "probably", "likely", "must have been", "could have been", "believes," "according to" and many more. These are "links" used in place of events and processes that cannot be joined with science.  How big a space do the "maybe's" and "might have's" actually fill?

Do the stories start or end with "we may never know" or that something is "obscure" or "more research is needed."

It's a good thing that science writers are free with these words phrases because it allows anyone to identify where the science ends and the storytelling begins. If they fear using them or cease to be free with them it only proves they recognize the weakness of their arguments. This is exemplified in a statement by Eugenie Scott of the NCSE,

Does substituting the word "believe" with "accept" change the science or lack thereof behind that acceptance? There is no question that the evolutionists are trying to fill the gaps in the story with science and there is nothing wrong in doing so. That's what the scientific method is for, to discover the facts that fill in the gaps.  We can demonstrate the problem by seeing what effect missing link phrases work on some well established scientific facts.

● Scientists believe that light travels at 186,282 miles per second.
● The heart could be a pump for the circulation of blood.
● The earth probably orbits the sun.
● Energy might equal mass times the speed of light squared. More research is needed.

The thing is that all the above questions were actually posed in the past.  But now they have answers that science has proven to be true and that can be reaffirmed at any time. We don't use the terms "might have" or "maybe" when we have established something. You don't write a check when you only think you might have enough money to cover it. Well most of us don't. Are evolutionists floating a lot of research paper, writing checks against science that hasn't been done?
 
The reason evolution is considered "established" by many scientists is based on philosophical considerations not on science. It's based on what science "could" discover instead of what has actually been established.  But can the critical details stand on the uncertainty  of "could be" or "might be"?

A fact established by science occurs when you cross the finish line not just because scientists are employed in the investigation. The starting line is the hypothesis. It is there where you use the uncertainty words.  Everyone must be able to retrace the steps taken in the investigation.  Imaginary data, processes or observations should disqualify a scientific hypothesis from becoming a fact.  Scientific confirmation is not when everyone who accepts an idea are finally imagining the same details. The "might's" and "maybe's" are the evidence that the science is missing.

Uncertainty words are used to bridge the gaps, to create the imaginary connections that make evolution sound plausible.  Without them the story of evolution falls apart. When you examine what science has shown against what evolutionists believe or "accept" you find that the biggest missing link in the story of evolution is science itself.

MISSING LINK: LIFE'S ORIGINS

"I do not know the origin of life. Those of us who hold, like I do, that life emerged spontaneously from inanimate matter are, we must admit, at a distinctly embarrassing disadvantage: we have not yet come up with a convincing mechanism for abiogenesis." -Brian L. Silver, "The Ascent of Science" pg 339

"We do not know how life arose from the primordial soup. This remains the greatest gap in our knowledge of the development of life. Many scientists believe that millions of years of random mixing and shuffling of molecules culminated in the appearance of one living cell -an object that could consume surrounding chemicals to make exact copies of itself." -Robert M. Hazen & James Trefil, -Science Matters  (pg 246)

"Nobody knows."   -Richard Dawkins.  (assuming that since he doesn't know that no one else does either)

Why are they embarrassed? Because they insist they have the answer, but they continually show up empty handed. They've claimed to understand the origins of life, yet when they are asked to produce the finished product, the science that proves the assertions, they have nothing to offer. Evolution's starting point is not yet supported by science. It is by faith that scientists believe in abiogenesis.

What's missing from the equation? They understand the molecules involved, they understand the structure, they know what components need to be built and what the end product should look like. They also know that what they know isn't enough to confirm what they believe. Oddly they think that since they are still in the dark everyone else must be also. Because although they don't know a "convincing" formula, they already have their answer. The science that has been done actually proves that a natural origin of life is impossible. Accept it.

MISSING LINK: HOW LONG

"It may have taken millions of years to create the first cell, but within a relatively short period of time, perhaps only a few years, that cell's offspring probably filled the world's oceans, consuming much of the organic raw materials and greatly reducing the chance that any other type of cell would spontaneously arise." -Robert M. Hazen & James Trefil, "Science Matters"

Every day we have trillions (Americans understand that amount now) of examples of all the correct ingredients for life spontaneously ceasing to be alive. The spark of life has to occur quickly once the right elements are in the right place at the same time. The science that demonstrates this to be true has yet to be done. It might take millions of years for the right chemical components to show up in the right place at the same time and then a series of reactions to lead up to the first cell, but it only takes a moment and a single error to stop the whole process.

MISSING LINK: THE INSTRUCTIONS

(silence) -Richard Dawkins

Information is the most important element of life's origins. In general it seems that most evolutionary texts agree with Dawkins and can't properly address the origin of information.  Evolutionists envision DNA, RNA, proteins, cell walls, organelles forming spontaneously, but how did the information to build all these things get programmed into the cell? The coordination and operation of the individual parts of the cell are information based. Where did the regulation come from? How did the DNA come to direct and specify the proteins and structures that originally "spontaneously" arose? This is a major missing link in the evolutionary story. Is there lots of missing science here or has science already shown us that information is the product of intelligence. It is the foundation of almost every other missing link in the story of evolution.

To get around the idea of information arising from nothing evolutionists come up with various un-testable scenarios in which DNA sequences are taken from other mysterious sources. Ideas such as gene duplication and co-option don't answer the question of how the information could originate in the first place, they just sidestep around the problem.

MISSING LINK: THE RAW MATERIAL

 "If evolution is really driven by the accumulation of mutations in DNA molecules, then one measure of how long it has been since two species shared a common ancestor is the differences in their genetic codes."  -Robert M. Hazen & James Trefil, "Science Matters" 

Do mutations really provide the raw material for evolution? In their rhetorical question the big word is "IF."  They aren't really asking if it's possible, they take it on faith that it is. This idea that mutations can provide new genetic information is based on consensus, not science. Evolutionists agree that its true, but they can't back it up with examples that don't require you to "believe." Comparing the genes of two organisms that they assume evolved from one another does not prove mutations created new information in the genes.  It simply assumes evolution occurred.  Real life science proves that mutations do not add up to new code, they destroy it. The more complex and integrated the system, the more likely mutations will cause it to fail.

When evolution was first envisioned no one knew that a cell required information to operate. Genetic variation was not understood by Darwin or those who were promoting evolution during the 19th century. In fact, when the knowledge of variation was introduced to science, it caused many scientists to correctly question Darwinian evolution, because it was only a source for existing traits. By the 1940s, the cause of new genetic material was believed to be mutation.  Yet even then mutations were still mysterious miracles that could explain any feature that was observed because no one understood the digital code nature of DNA. Evolutionists were again taking advantage of scientific ignorance.  The understanding that the DNA was a digital code came more than a decade after mutations were declared raw material and more century after evolution been established as factual in the minds of many. Evolution was not accepted based on an understanding of biology but in spite of it. Currently, the belief that mutations can produce new information is not supported by science.  We find evolutionists trying to convince themselves that blindness, antibiotic resistance, loss of the ability to fly and sickle cell anemia are the evidence of beneficial mutations.  Belief in evolution is clearly being driven by something other than science. Without a source for information, life doesn't exist and molecules to man evolution doesn't occur.

One fallacious idea often presented is that neutral mutations can eventually add up to new genetic code. This however is easily shown to be false. A series of neutral mutations does not decrease the odds of the overall effect being harmful nor does it decrease the frequency in which harmful mutations occur.  The organs and structures in life are very rarely independent of the rest of the organism or the environment. A new structure involves not only designing the new structure, but also adding genetic information to incorporate it into the whole. Randomly adding genetic information may remain neutral for a while, but with each new addition to the code the chances that it will cause the whole assembly to fail or loose functionality increase as well.

MISSING LINK: SHELLS

"Some scientists suggest that shells evolved as a means of sorting or filtering nutrients, but the main theory argues that shells were basically a form of self defense…"  -The Beginning pg 22

In this case both the main theory and the suggestion are based on the concept that shells evolved with a specific goal in mind, i.e. to filter nutrients or as self defense. These are both intelligent goals that would require a designer. The idea that evolution is goal orientated or purposive is not allowed within the theory yet it is used quite often in evolutionary literature.  So how did it shells really evolve, could they evolve at all?  Does real science tell us its possible? Do they start with a nutrient sensative spot or can they demonstrate the mutations from the beginning? They need real science to back up evolutionary claims.

MISSING LINKS: SENSES AND THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM

"It is interesting to see how the earliest vertebrates, including jawless fish, had evolved heads. In their continual search for food, fishlike chordates had to be able to smell, touch, and even see the surrounding areas of water. Somehow, this combined search for information lead to the development of a nerve cord with a front end swelling that eventually became a brain. You can see how the shape we are today is directly related to the need to adapt and control what immediately surrounds us." -The Beginning pg 25

Evolution is simply assumed here. They are right however, organisms do need a head and heads are a logical result of a need for a head, so its interesting to see how heads evolved. What science proved that heads can evolve? The development of the senses is a critical evolutionary step. These organisms "had to" sense their environment. How would this need force genetic changes along a very specific path. Sensory apparatus is difficult to design, yet the fossil record shows it going from simple to highly advanced in a moment of geologic time. "Somehow". There's evolutionary science in a nutshell. What "science" led to the discovery that nerve cord swelling will lead to sensory programming and coordination?

MISSING LINK: INSECT WINGS
All insect wings probably had the same origin, evolving from little gill plates raised as sails to help them skim across the surfaces of ancient ponds" -The Beginning pg 48

Powered precision flight from raised gill plates and a few million years. There are some fairly convincing tales on the development of wings in insects as long as you don't want to think about it too long.  The key word here, an evolutionary hard fact word, is "probably." Has any science has shown that mutated gill plates will in fact connect to the nervous and muscular apparatus necessary for powered insect flight?  Evolutionary stories often focus on one part of an organism wide system change. No change such as gill plates to wings involves just a change in the structure of one part. They require system wide simultaneous modifications. There is alot of missing science that will need to fill in that "probably." But will they still accept the answer if it begins to look like "probably not?"

MISSING LINK: MAN'S ANCESTRY

"The oldest fossil men and women, found in the African lake sediments, belong to the genus Australopithecus (or "Southern ape"). These remains of the fist known mammal to walk upright are believed to be ancestral to our species, and provide a direct evolutionary link between ape-like mammals and humans."  -Science Matters 254

The "direct" link given for ape to man is based on belief. The only science that backs it is a comparison of structures and assumed abilities. Did anyone see the Australopithecus walk upright or do anything else for that matter? The fact that every single attribute the Australopithecus fossils have can be found in apes is usually ignored. How are these statements known? From experience and observation or from authority? These are beliefs as stated above. Do all  anthropologists agree or only the reputable ones?  Have they done science that shows how the rewiring would occur that is required to transform an ape brain into a human brain is possible and certain?  How many factors are left out when establishing a "direct" link from an unknown starting point?

It's also interesting that the authors identify the apes as "men and women." This is of course incorrect when used for an ape and demonstrates either their own misunderstanding or subtle attempt to embelish the story.

MISSING LINK: THE AMNIOTIC EGG

"By some mysterious process of change evolving reptiles could lay so-called "amniotic eggs.' " -The Beginning pg 49

The mystical power of evolution is the mysterious process of change.  Science doesn't tell us that purposeful systems and structures arise through an accumulation of errors.  That is why evolutionists are so often mystified when looking at complex purposeful designs in nature. They see the complexity, they know it looks designed but their philosophical bias will not allow them to see the obvious.



MISSING LINK: SEX

"Biologists think that sexual reproduction, when sperm fuses with an egg, evolved as part of an 'arms race' with parasites. Sexual reproduction allows for faster evolutionary response than asexual production"   -Biology Matters Vol. 9: Evolution pg 51

Besides the fact that an arms race is purposeful, sex is not just the joining single cell sperm and egg. That's the goal. The process is very complex. The many unique delivery and exchange systems and multiple strategies involved are just as important. The different organs and strategies of male and female had to develop simultaneously for every existing reproductive system in biology. How much science is missing here?

MISSING LINK: BIRDS

"And here is a miracle -from some feathered dinosaur there emerged the first bird" -The Beginning pg 73

Are miracles allowed in science? Perhaps the author senses something here?

It seems that every few months a report of a possible feathered dinosaur hits the news. The stories are designed to be convincing and are presented by an uncritical media. If you look for the science behind it and follow through you will see the "facts" become objects of scientific debate and then, after a time, another question mark is quietly added the story of bird evolution.

There are several things however that are critical to bird anatomy that evolutionists keep on the sidelines. Scale to feather evolution has never been shown to be possible, its just assumed. How many mutations does it take to turn scales to skin with feathers? Additionally, flight feathers are specifically designed. Each feather has a unique form, function and position on the bird.  The bone structure has to be precise and hollow. The metabolism needs to be modified. The hips need to be specialized. Then there is the fused bones in the pelvic girdle that support the specialized lungs. Then there is the preening gland to keep the feathers in good condition. Evolutionists focus on a few structural changes and seem to gloss over the most important key to flight, the will to fly and the programming that gets the whole structure off the ground. All these changes are necessary to take a dinosaur and change it into a bird. Can DNA be modified to such an extent without guidance? Evolutionists testify that these miracles did in fact occur when no one was looking. Just believe.