You're kidding, right? I take it you never pay attention to the news, or read any science journal, not even the ones written for general audiences? There have been dozens of "missing links" found and reported in the last year alone, much less over the past 150+ years. Here, start to learn something finally:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
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...
Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life
What Is A Transitional Fossil?
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
More are being found all the time. For one example, not long ago 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 FAQHow many more would you like?The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin 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 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
Eocene evolution of whale hearing
Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised
New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae
The fossil record is not a support for macroevolution.
ROFL! Oh, I see -- you've made the mistake of "learning" about science from Jack Chick comics instead of actually getting a real education on the topic.
Read and learn, kid:
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"Also:
[From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.85
Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.[Last Update: April 15, 2005]Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.
Introduction
volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Outline
- Universal Common Descent Defined
- Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
- What Counts as Scientific Evidence
- Other Explanations for the Biology
- How to Cite This Document
They are far more evidence of a worldwide Flood (organic things rot, they would have to be buried relatively fast in mineral-rich sediment to be fossilized).
No, sorry:
Problems with a Global FloodReview of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood
Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?
Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust
Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory
Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood
The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce
The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See
Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?
Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model
Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood
While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing
More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology
Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood
As you mentioned, there are millions of fossils, and yet fossilization does not occur all that easily. The Flood fits the conditions to fossilize a lots of organics, all over the world.
Let me get this straight -- your "evidence" for a global flood is that there are bunches of fossils? You can't think of any other scenario that could have produced bunches of fossils? Really?