Hardly. I’m not a journalist. Journalists love the term “missing link.” Scientists? Not so much.
Because paleontologists don’t share the public’s misunderstanding of “transitional forms” and “missing links”, they aren’t concerned about the straw man argument you are making. As has already been explained, minor adjustments in timelines (yes, 10 million years can be quite minor) does NOTHING to undermine the playing out of evolutionary processes over time.
Dcscccc, it sounds like you’ve picked up the popular but inaccurate idea of what I call “cities and routes evolution.” When people talk about “transitional forms” versus “fully functional organisms”, [see footnote] they think the latter are the major destinations of evolution (i.e., the cities) while for short periods (allegedly) there are various “transitional forms” along a road between major destination species. And that is why you’ve convinced yourself that if Tiktaalik evolved earlier and survived in a relatively unchanging form for many millions of years, that would somehow throw the whole “evolution chart” into chaos.
No. The problem you think you’ve identified is simply your own dissatisfaction with the straw man version of evolution you’ve created which, admittedly, you based on straw man versions of evolution you heard from various anti-evolution sources who have no idea what evolution is nor how it operates. (Those sources are also what convinced the general public that evolution is “one species turning into another species” and even “a cat turning into a dog”. You won’t hear many of them talking about changes in allele frequencies in populations over time. That would require actually learning about evolution theory.)
I have great empathy for your plight. I was in exactly the same mindset for many years because—despite being an anti-evolution speaker and debate—I had never bothered to sit down with even one evolutionary biology textbook used at a major university, and working through it page by page. When I finally did so, I was terribly embarrassed by the sudden realization that I had previously had nothing but a straw man concept of the Theory of Evolution.
Yet, I shouldn’t have been surprised. I got my information about evolution from people who were entirely ignorant of the science—and just as clueless about evolution as I was. Yet, because they were beloved ministry leaders who shared my evangelical theology and view of the Bible, I simply assumed that I could trust everything they told me. At the very least, I assumed that they had done their homework. They hadn’t. (Indeed, so much of what they had taught me came directly from one of SDA Prophetess Ellen White’s most devoted followers who knew little more about science than she did.)
Nothing is easier to debunk than the straw-man version of evolution. Of course, I know from personal experience that it was fun (and very self-flattering) to think that I was so easily exposing and debunking such simple errors in evolutionary biology that a planet full of PhD’s in that field so recklessly missed. (Yet, as the youngest professor on the entire university campus, I already had an oversized ego. So when I got by far the most applause and “votes” coming out of most of my debates against “evolutionists” [I wonder if the busloads of church congregations in the auditorium helped that???], it was very easy to convince myself that all of the best science was on my side! Yes, my booking agent even added that boast to the “Introduction Card” in the Guest Speaker Kit which was mailed to pastors who would be introducing me when I preached at their churches. You might say that the “product” we were selling to young earth creationist churches was essentially “We know more than those evil atheist science professors who brought the godless religion of evolution to our nation’s university campuses. You can know more too. Everybody can.” Yes, it was hubris in a can for the average pew-sitter! (And yes, I still feel extremely ashamed of myself. I was young and foolish—with an ego the size of the Creation Museum.)
@FOOTNOTE:
I’ve often asked those who speak of “fully-formed, functional organisms” to define and give me examples of “non-fully-formed functional organisms.” Nobody ever gives me a solid answer, but in conversation with them it is easy to see that they have the straw man view that evolution is believed to produce lots of “failed monsters”. You know: the “transition” between a fish and reptile which looked kind of like a hybrid of the two, with random tries at structures like the half-fin/half-leg with a randomly-positioned extra eye at the end. After all, it is obvious that a “transitional, non-fully-formed” animals with a “trial leg” as an third appendage at various locations on their bodies didn’t survive because they weren’t “fully formed” (at least, not like the four-legged destination animal of that evolutionary path would eventually be!) They hear phrases like “random mutations” and they imagine random monsters which weren’t “fully formed”.
For years I’ve told students: "If you want to understand the straw-man versions of evolution taught by many anti-evolution ministries, all you have to do is look at their arguments against the Theory of Evolution. If you know the argument, you will know their concept of evolution. Yes, most of their arguments are only successful at debunking their own straw-man versions of evolution, all of which sprang up naturally from their own misunderstandings of evolution.
By the way, Dr. Todd Wood, an anti-evolution Young Earth Creationist, has written many outstandingly honest and pleading exhortations to his “creation science” brethren begging them to abandon their straw-man arguments. It is interesting to see how he has largely been ostracized by all of the YEC ministries even though he earned a legitimate science PhD in a relevant field, something in extremely short supply among creation science leaders. He eventually had to raise his own support and become an independent scholar and speaker, pleading for honesty and integrity in the anti-evolution ministry community.
