Filled missing link in fossil record cause Darwinists to admit large gaps..

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1408

Darwin sympathizers seem to have a habit of overstating what the fossil evidence really shows. One example is in the case of Au. anamensis, a fossil that allegedly helps fill gaps in the human evolution chain:

" Recent "retroactive confessions of ignorance" are witnessed in comments about the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports "human evolution."

This latest "missing link" is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of "intermediacy" are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of "intermediate" size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a "missing link." Because some bone fragments from Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensus were also found in the area, MSNBC highlighted these finds on a front-page article calling this "the most complete chain of human evolution so far." Media coverage of this find thus follows an identical pattern to that of Tiktaalik: incredibly overblown claims of a "transitional fossil" follow stark admissions of how previously bleak the evidence was for evolution. Moreover, claims that this find enlightens "human evolution" are misleading, as these fossils come from ape-like species that long-predate the appearance of our genus Homo, and thought to be far removed from the origin of "humans." "

Whenever there are missing links, Darwinists claim it's impossible to build a mostly complete fossil record. Whenever some bone fragments of an ape-like species are found, Darwinists admit to the presence of missing links, but they also claim that bone fragments from what usually turns out to be a variation of an ape or similar species are definitive transitional forms in the human evolution chain. But that's usually not the case at all.

Well... it shouldn't be that hard if it happened very slowly and over millions of years. We should observe a gradual change. Why shouldn't there be at least a few fossils after a million years?

The alternative is that significant numbers of fossils are only left after extremely catastropic events - thus they take snapshots rather than a video of time. Another alternative is that it happened so fast we can't see it - but that begs the question of what caused such change, and why it isn't observable today.

Otherwise I don't see a reason why gaps if they are found shouldn't be interpreted as the truth rather than as "missing".