Missing Link: Or Missing Chain

Darwinists always talk about finding the "missing link". This puts into the minds of readers and conversationalists these two or three long segments of chain that lack only a single link or so to become one harmonious, singular chain. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Image some company builds a mile-tall concrete pillar to the bottom of the ocean floor somewhere between Europe and the continental United States, and puts a 10-foot long segment of road on top of the pillar, complete with yellow lane stripes and a light signal. While conservationists would certainly decry the traffic signal as "light pollution", the company could hardly claim to have constructed the first intercontinental Pan-European highway!

Yet, evolutionists with a million "missing links" yet to fill, hold a cereal bowl full of disconnected chain links in their hand and celebrate profusely when someone walks in the room and drops another disconnected link into the bowl, marking the near completeness of the chain.

What's worse, genetics has further complicated their quest to build their chain. What if one of the links was bronze, another was copper, another was lead, another was steel, another was brass, and the last was tin? In that case, the links you have don't even belong to the same chain! So you're even further from completing some ethereal chain!

As tissue specimens are collected and gene-mapped, we are able to tear apart each link and discover what it's made of. If one link's genome is 600,000 "base pairs" long (the size of some bacteria), while another link's is 3 billion "base pairs" long (the size of a mouse or human's), then they can't be from the same "chain" of decendency (and this ignores the coding of the base pairs!).

To a member of the genomics or bioinformatics community, sorting out which link belongs to which chain is as simple as is sorting pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters for you and I.

Scientists know that they don't have anything like a singular, cohesive chain. But they are slaves to their masters in the scientific community. If they want to be published or promoted, they must tow the line and pretend to be as confident in evolution as all their peers pretend to be. It's too bad that a few more honest scientists won't step up and declare the weakness of or at least question the accepted dogma. In our age of communication, haven't we had enough demagoguery?

For my part, I'd sooner buy a "gold" chain from a guy named "glitz" on a Chicago street corner than what Darwinists are selling.