Reply #13: Erm, what? [View All]

Firstly humans are apes - a child with an ape-like appearance is therefore a redundant statement.

Secondly the whole 'missing link' thing is just a big fallacy - the basic tactic of a evolutionary theory detractor when presented with two pieces of evidence towards a evolutionary path is to demand a third piece to sit in the middle. When that third piece arrives they will then demand two more pieces to fit into the two new gaps that have appeared, and so forth.

Lastly there simply cannot be living 'missing links' by definition. A missing link MUST be an ancestor, so unless you're proposing this kid is pretty old he cannot be an ancestor of homo sapiens.