That's fine. But I am reading that the fossil record shows no such thing. Unless I am missing something. Like here.
No Transitional Features
28 Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures?birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.
29 New Scientist noted that evolution ?predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.? But it admitted: ?Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.?31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: ?No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.? He speaks of ?the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.?32 ?In fact,? The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, ?the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.?33?Italics added.
30 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: ?Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.? Moore added: ?No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.?34
31 Thus, what was true in Darwin?s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D?Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: ?Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.?
Why are prominent people who study this, saying this? How am I the stupid one, for listening to people like D'Arcy Thompson who live for this stuff, and write books on it? What makes his opinion less to you, than someone who disagrees with him? Personal choice maybe?
But there is more.
What the Fossil Record Really Says
36 When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.
37 ?The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,? concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: ?No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.?40
38 Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: ?To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory?and we have seen that it does not?what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.?
How am I suppose to ignore this?