Changes

The [[conservative]] writer [[Ann Coulter]] sarcastically quipped concerning Gould's admission about the fossil record, "Lots of real scientific [[theory|theories]] have 'secrets.'"<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45893 Liberals' View of Darwin Unable to Evolve]</ref>

The [[conservative]] writer [[Ann Coulter]] sarcastically quipped concerning Gould's admission about the fossil record, "Lots of real scientific [[theory|theories]] have 'secrets.'"<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45893 Liberals' View of Darwin Unable to Evolve]</ref>

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change....All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."<ref name="puncteq">Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age Punctuated Equilibrium: Come of Age?], 1994</ref><ref>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History 86 (June/July): 22-30]</ref>  

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change....All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."<ref name="puncteq">Dr. Don Batten, [https://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age Punctuated Equilibrium: Come of Age?], 1994</ref><ref>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History 86 (June/July): 22-30]</ref>  

The senior paleontologist at the [[Britain|British]] Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:  

The senior paleontologist at the [[Britain|British]] Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:  

{{cquote|[[Phyletic gradualism|Gradualism]] is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils....I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those fossils are a problem]</ref>}}

{{cquote|[[Phyletic gradualism|Gradualism]] is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils....I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those fossils are a problem]</ref>}}

According to Dr. Don Batten, Stephen Gould in 1970s made some admissions that there was a "lack of evidence for phylogeny in the fossils" and that Gould had also claimed a number of that were no indisputable intermediate forms. Dr. Batten states that Gould made these statements when Gould was less concerned about creationists.<ref name="puncteq" /> Dr. Batten also states that "claimed examples of transitional series and intermediate forms received an incisive critique from Gould in the 1970s...."<ref name="puncteq" /> However, Gould's admissions were subsequently widely quoted by creationists.<ref name="puncteq" /> According to Dr. Batton, in 1981 Gould started making intemperate language towards creationists.<ref>Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/gould-grumbles-about-creationist-hijacking Gould Grumbles About Creationist ‘Hijacking’]</ref> After having been incessantly quoted by creationist regarding the fossil record, Gould altered his public stance regarding the fossil record and without stating specific examples from the fossil record and using the ambiguous term "larger groups" Gould stated the following in 1981:  

According to Dr. Don Batten, Stephen Gould in 1970s made some admissions that there was a "lack of evidence for phylogeny in the fossils" and that Gould had also claimed a number of that were no indisputable intermediate forms. Dr. Batten states that Gould made these statements when Gould was less concerned about creationists.<ref name="puncteq" /> Dr. Batten also states that "claimed examples of transitional series and intermediate forms received an incisive critique from Gould in the 1970s...."<ref name="puncteq" /> However, Gould's admissions were subsequently widely quoted by creationists.<ref name="puncteq" /> According to Dr. Batton, in 1981 Gould started making intemperate language towards creationists.<ref>Dr. Don Batten, [https://creation.com/gould-grumbles-about-creationist-hijacking Gould Grumbles About Creationist ‘Hijacking’]</ref> After having been incessantly quoted by creationist regarding the fossil record, Gould altered his public stance regarding the fossil record and without stating specific examples from the fossil record and using the ambiguous term "larger groups" Gould stated the following in 1981:  

{{cquote|Since we proposed [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]] to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."<ref>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981)]</ref>}}

{{cquote|Since we proposed [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]] to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."<ref>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981)]</ref>}}

As mentioned earlier, one of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is [[Archaeopteryx]]. Dr. [[Alan Feduccia]], a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:  

As mentioned earlier, one of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is [[Archaeopteryx]]. Dr. [[Alan Feduccia]], a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:  

{{cquote|Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.<ref name="SarfatiArchaeopteryx">Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,  

{{cquote|Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.<ref name="SarfatiArchaeopteryx">Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,  

[http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoaxit-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax — it is a true bird, not a “missing link”]</ref>}}

[https://creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoaxit-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax — it is a true bird, not a “missing link”]</ref>}}

Creation scientists have a number of arguments against [[Archaeopteryx]] being a transitional fossil find.<ref name="SarfatiArchaeopteryx" /><ref>

Creation scientists have a number of arguments against [[Archaeopteryx]] being a transitional fossil find.<ref name="SarfatiArchaeopteryx" /><ref>

* Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], [http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window Archaeopteryx]

* Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], [https://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window Archaeopteryx]

* Dr. [[Duane Gish]], [http://www.icr.org/article/321/ As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly]

* Dr. [[Duane Gish]], [https://www.icr.org/article/321/ As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3833/106/ ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 4, Bird Evolution?]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3833/106/ ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 4, Bird Evolution?]

</ref>

</ref>

A second famous alleged transitional fossil claimed by evolutionists is Tiktaalik. Creation scientists have a number of arguments regarding the fossil find of Tiktaalik not being a transitional find.<ref>

A second famous alleged transitional fossil claimed by evolutionists is Tiktaalik. Creation scientists have a number of arguments regarding the fossil find of Tiktaalik not being a transitional find.<ref>

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4250 Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4250 Tiktaalik—a fishy ‘missing link’]

* Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/article/2962/ Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?]

* Frank Sherwin, M.A., [https://www.icr.org/article/2962/ Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?]

* Dr. David Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp Tiktaalik and the fishy story of walking fish]

* Dr. David Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp Tiktaalik and the fishy story of walking fish]

</ref>

</ref>

{{cquote|Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), [[Stephen Jay Gould]], wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem., see:

{{cquote|Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), [[Stephen Jay Gould]], wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem., see:

[http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils]...

[https://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils]...

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” — see:  

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” — see:  

[http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation].<ref>http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists</ref>}}

[https://creation.com/werner-living-fossils Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation].<ref>https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists</ref>}}

Related videos:

Related videos:

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=yXeKk18jUTc Video on the lack of credible transitional fossils]

*[https://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=yXeKk18jUTc Video on the lack of credible transitional fossils]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=bFM1jJvnaW4Video Video on living fossils]

*[https://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=bFM1jJvnaW4Video Video on living fossils]

=== Cambrian rocks ===

=== Cambrian rocks ===

The so-called [[Cambrian explosion|"Cambrian" rocks]] which contain fossils are a vexing problem for evolutionists. ''Scientific American '' called them "Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox"<ref name="creation.com">[http://creation.com/exploding-evolution Creatures found as fossils in ‘Cambrian’ rocks have no evolutionary ancestors. And no new basic body plans have appeared since]</ref> Creatures found as fossils in these "Cambrian" rocks have no evolutionary ancestors.<ref name="creation.com"/>  See: [http://creation.com/exploding-evolution Cambrian rocks].

The so-called [[Cambrian explosion|"Cambrian" rocks]] which contain fossils are a vexing problem for evolutionists. ''Scientific American '' called them "Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox"<ref name="creation.com">[https://creation.com/exploding-evolution Creatures found as fossils in ‘Cambrian’ rocks have no evolutionary ancestors. And no new basic body plans have appeared since]</ref> Creatures found as fossils in these "Cambrian" rocks have no evolutionary ancestors.<ref name="creation.com"/>  See: [https://creation.com/exploding-evolution Cambrian rocks].

==  Supposed alleged transitional fossils are inevitably debunked ==

==  Supposed alleged transitional fossils are inevitably debunked ==

One of the tactics which Darwinists use is to promote a handful of alleged transitional fossils of a highly speculative nature which are later debunked.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://creation.com/missing-links-parade The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’ - The floats keep changing!]</ref>  When these handful of spurious transitional fossils are shown to be in error, evolutionists assert another handful of transitional fossils.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Students who are indoctrinated into evolution are largely not told of the debunked fossils which later prove to be an embarrassment to the evolutionist community (See: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]] and [[Paleoanthropology]]).

One of the tactics which Darwinists use is to promote a handful of alleged transitional fossils of a highly speculative nature which are later debunked.<ref name="ReferenceA">[https://creation.com/missing-links-parade The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’ - The floats keep changing!]</ref>  When these handful of spurious transitional fossils are shown to be in error, evolutionists assert another handful of transitional fossils.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Students who are indoctrinated into evolution are largely not told of the debunked fossils which later prove to be an embarrassment to the evolutionist community (See: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]] and [[Paleoanthropology]]).

== External links ==

== External links ==

*[http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Fossils and Darwinism]

*[https://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Fossils and Darwinism]

*[http://creation.com/missing-links-parade The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’ - The floats keep changing!]

*[https://creation.com/missing-links-parade The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’ - The floats keep changing!]

*[http://creation.com/the-fossils-shout-creation The fossils shout creation]

*[https://creation.com/the-fossils-shout-creation The fossils shout creation]

*[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes]  

*[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes]