Evolutionists are finally (and with great reluctance) publicly acknowledging large morphological gaps in the fossil record. These gaps are so distinct that evolutionists now recognize them as real, rather than as an artifact of poor fossil preservation. ROFL! Yeah, sure son. Name a few of these "large morphological gaps" for us. Show us your knowledge of this field.
And no, your pathetic quote-mining (2) doesn't help your case any.
Here, have a look at *actual* fossil evidence instead of the snippets of misleadingly out of context quotes your creationist masters have selected to mislead you with: The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
For more transitional fossils (and documentation of creationist lies about it), see for example:
Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils. Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...
Phylum Level Evolution
Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life
Cuffey: Transitional Fossils
What Is A Transitional Fossil?
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Transitional Forms of Whales
Fossil Horses FAQs
PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth
Mammaliformes: Docodonta
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird
Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
So many more evolutionists recognizing what YOU fail to acknowledge.
No, your creationist puppet-masters have mislead you by distorted misquoting. The actual position of biologists is in fine accord with my own position.
Let's take one of your distorted quotes as an example, shall we?
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between jamor transitions in organic design..is a persistent and nagging problem for gradulastic accounts of evolution... GOULD
This quote in its full context -- and the dishonest way in which creationists have misrepresented it -- is covered
here. Gould was actually talking about the absence of fossil evidence for *some* transitions and the nature of what those transitions might be lacking such definitive indications, he wasn't claiming (as the creationists falsely imply) that he was saying that there weren't any transitional fossils of any sort, period.
Indeed, Gould's annoyance at being frequently misrepresented in this way by creationists was legendary:
Since we proposed 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. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. [...]
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (1994)
Finally, Gould's observation about the lack of transitional fossils in some sequences was written A QUARTER CENTURY AGO. There have been *vast* numbers of transitional fossils found since then, filling a great many previous "gaps" in evolutionary lineages. Your quote, even if it had been accurate at the time (and again, you're misrepresenting it) is way out of date.
For one example, at the time that quote was written, there were no major transitional fossils between whales and their land-based ancestors. In the time since, however, *many* have been found, mapping out an unmistakable sequence transitioning between land mammals and fully aquatic whales, including this fine fellow:
For details, see:
The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThe Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Links on whale evolution
SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales
Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales
Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls
Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade
A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans
A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales
Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1
The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates
Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss
Eocene evolution of whale hearing
Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised
Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals
Subordinal artiodactyl relationships in the light of phylogenetic analysis of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes
New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae
Cetacean Systematics
LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF THE TIME OF ORIGIN OF CETACEA AND THE TIME OF DIVERGENCE OF CETACEA AND ARTIODACTYLA
Phylogenetic Relationships of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans as Deduced from the Comparison of Cytochrome b and 12s rRNA Mitochondrial Sequences
Molecular evolution of mammalian ribonucleases
No transitional fossils? "Large morphological gaps"? Don't make me laugh.
Again, your document dumps are tedious. You are never able to keep on point. You must have taken lessons from the Clintons.
Perhaps you could begin by defining the terms transitional form and intermediate form. They convey the imagery of evolution yet there is so much confusion surrounding them. If you want to believe in something, the easiest solution is to assert its existence, and, when that fails, to define it such that it cannot help but exist..
Again, define your use of terms. Evolutionists consistently change the meaning of a term and go into their little dialectic to reach a consensus and when that's exposed they simply redefine the same term again and again. Anotherwords, you guys are always chasing the tail.
One evolutionists , Cracraft, says that every species is an intermediate form, while another, Halstead, says that not one species is intermediate. Both authors try to get wround this pointed issue by redefining the terminology to make it effectively useless.
More commonly, evolutionists define intermediate form as a species that has characteristics from two seperate groups. One objection to that definition is that it intertwines intermediate forms with supraspecific groups. Intermediate forms are used as evidence for ancestor-descendant relationships, but supraspecific groups are unacceptable as ancestors and descendants.
So, to follow the dumbed down logic of these "great scientific minds" intermediate form would have essentiall the same definition as convergent form. Convergences and intermediates would be observed in the same way. But the difference would be how they are explained
If the situation can be explained by common descent, then it is an intermediate form. If not, then it is convergence. These are two different ways of looking at the same data.
Thus intermediates reflect the whims of phylogenetic speculation. Many of today's convergent forms were once thought to be intermediates..
So all your links are worthless. They are, if studied, carefully illusions.
Creationists argue that there are no intermediate forms, and evolutionists respond with your time-worn counter-attack: They claim that creationists misunderstand science!!
We read the terminology with common sense. An intermediate or transition form is determined by lineage. Once a clear lineage is identified between organisms X and Y, then the intermediate forms are self evident
But a real scientists says we misunderstand the meaning of transition in taxonomic science. Nahigian, an evolutionists, states. "I was taught that a transitonal form is one that shows morphological genetic traits connecting two distinct groups. To myu knowledge, biologists never insist that the "intermediate form" must fall on a direct line of ancestry.
Typical transitions are chimeras or mosaics, combining significant characteristics from two groups.
So if evolutionists want to use terms correctly, they could use terminology like chimeric form, mosaic. or mosaic form - Why don't they? Perhaps because the words intermediate and transitional form convery the illusions of evolution.
So if you really want to discuss this issue, please try and define your terms correctly and start with one point at a time...rather than go on another trip to the dumpster dive.