You obviously have little to no knowledge of science other than your ludicrous laughable sources. The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist - creationist sources are apparently well aware of this and tailor their putrid offerings to the lowest common denominator of the ignorant and dull minded.
The fossil record is an illustration of just how long life has been on Earth and the many forms life has taken - Gould argued for punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism - apparently you were not intelligent enough to get what he was actually talking about.
Every fossil is a ‘transition’ between the population that gave rise to that individual and the populations that will come after that individual.
How would you describe an Australopithocine fossil?
What would you expect in a ‘transitional’ fossil between humans and knuckle walking apes that is not found in Australopithocine?
Do you believe in Geocentrism?
Could this be the reason that your post are so often shallow and mocking. Are you afraid of the deep water amd?
from http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils
Evolutionists often make these kinds of frank admissions among themselves. But they are generally ‘not for publication’ as public dissension is regarded as being traitorous to the cause.
Note what Patterson said in his response to the anticreationist in question:
‘I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. … I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.’1
He seems to be saying that it’s OK to doubt as long as we don’t let the creationists know.
Being a world-renowned fossil expert, Patterson’s frank admissions were embarrassing to adherents of the ‘religion of evolution’—including himself, it would appear. But there were even more devastating revelations to come from Dr Patterson.
During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:
‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.
‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:
‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”