text: what scientific process has been used to justify views on the origins of the spieces.? i am not being a 'creationist' smart alec here. my understanding of scientific research is to cover all the bases and challenge all and try to disprove the hypothesis. the "missing link" dosn't seem to be a phrase suitable for a scientist trying to disprove his hypothesis. vestigial features (note to creationists:  vestigial does not mean useless, do not bother lying that it does) demonstrate we are not now what we were in our past.  our descending testes is a vestige of our reptilian days.  our quadraped-style backs demonstrate we used to walk on four-legs and are only imperfectly adapted yet to two.  each and every human on the planet has a gene that would stimulate our hair growth to be as thick as a chimpanzee's, if it were working.  it's broken because it has a parasite in it.  remove the parasite and we'd have nice, thick coating of fur.  evolution explains this easily, we evolved from furry ancestors, the parasite is responsible for our current state.  creationism has no explanation for why god would have created us with a broken gene, with a parasite, neither of which we actually want.  one gene we do want is a vitamin c gene.  untold masses of people have died throughout history due to lacking a way to make their own vitamin c.  but, we do have one.  it's just broken.  our primate ancestors lived in fruit rich environments, making their own vitamin c was an unnecessary waste of energy, so a mutation killing the gene was a good thing.  humans do *not* always live in such areas and a vitamin c gene would have saved many, many lives.  but instead, we have one broken, broken in exactly the same way that a chimpanzee's is broken.  why were we created wtih a broken vitamin c gene?  why is it broken *exactly* the same way as a chimp's?  still no answer from the creationists.  the evidence for evolution comes from all directions all the time.  the fossils demand evoluion, creationists being unable to explain any aspects of fossils sorting.  biogeography demands evolution.  how, after the flood, did all the animals manage to get back to the areas where their fossils are?  why would they bother?  where are the signs of the massive forest of eucalyptus it would take to get koala from the ark back to australia?  scientists can piece together the motion of the continents from species distribution, creationists are left only with pretending it isn't enough.  as far as the "missing" link goes, this is primarily a press bugaboo.  there is no singular missing link.  rather, we have a wide series of very non-missing links.  classic case in point:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html  here you can see a list of some of the fossil skulls scientists claim are links between humans and the rest of the apes.  creationists have to pretend that there are no transitions, each of those fossils is either "obviously" human or "obviously" ape.  but when you look at what they say is "obviously" what, you'll see they cannot even agree on which skulls are "obviously" which.  if it was really obvious, wouldn't they agree?  wouldn't they come *close* to agreeing?  the only thing obvious about that chart is that the skulls really do seem to be transitional and creationist demands for a supposedly missing link are nothing but the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling, "does not" to make the evidence go away.