Replies

What do the evolutionists say—to those who would like to be certain that their belief in evolution is based on firm science—about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

The claim that there are no transitional forms is creationist propaganda. They refuse to see those transitionals, hence they don't exist.

This is an example of a transitional:

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

What... about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

Ah! That's a very interesting question. Some people ask this in a dishonest way, defining "transitional form" as transitional between the closest specimens that have been found, so that a transitional form is by definition one that hasn't been found, and if we find it it ceases to be transitional. But I'll assume you ask in an honest sense.

Some species (and genera, and body forms, and so on) leave many fossils, some leave very few, and it is reasonable to assume that some leave none at all --at least, I've never heard a plausible argument that every species must leave a fossil, or that every fossil must survive and be found. So the fossil record is not complete. (This is to be expected, whether evolution is true or not.) So why is there so much clustering? We do find transitional forms, but why are they rare? Part of the explanation is that some forms are bound to be rarer that others, so those are the ones that appear to be transitional between the better-known types. Another part is that some strategies just don't mix very well, so the transitional form tends to be less successful than either by itself: fish are successful, amphibians are successful, but fish that sometimes walk on land (as some do today) are less so, because they're invested it terrestrial life but don't yet take full advantage of it. Recently the scientific community has developed the idea of punctuated equilibrium, the idea that species tend to be stable over their lifetimes, and that speciation is brief and infrequent. This is still a matter of debate, but it would explain a lot about the fossil record.

What do the evolutionists say—to those who would like to be certain that their belief in evolution is based on firm science—about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

I can't speak for all but if I were asked that question then I would point to that hundreds of transitional fossils have been identified, most of which are listed here.