Note: We are in the (long overdue) process of updating and completing our "Common Questions" pages. As they are updated, the pages will feature shorter text and simpler visual style.
Though the fossil record does not include every plant and animal that ever lived, it provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution. The fossil record is a remarkable gift for the study of nature.
Many, if not all of the statements in this article have been utterly refuted by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati in his “Refuting Evolution” and “Refuting Compromise” books. This article says that transitional fossils should be few, but there is no logical reason for that. It is more reasonable to assume they should be many. In addition, too many conclusions are based on too few samples, especially when it comes to supposed transitionals. A difference in structure does not prove transition. Proof needs to exist that it was not merely an off-type, or a variation, or an environmental effect (such as the thalidomyde effect). Otherwise it merely remains nothing more than spurious speculation.
We also know that absence of fossils does not prove absence of species. This has been proven many times. Yet this idea continues to be used as a basic assumption, which is ironically, incredibly unscientific.
The rareness of transitional fossils is clearly to expected. When Gould and Eldredge came with their Punctuated Equilibria model of evolution, they made this very clear. Even if gradul evolutionary change exists, it looks like the majority of changes occurs rather fast and in small populations, followed by a long period of stasis. Consequently most fossils would represent the stabile species and not the transitional population, very restricted in both time and space.
Since transitional fossils are rare, it is now expected that they are rare. Hmmmm. But that was not the original assumption. Originally it was assumed there would be more transitionals than present species. Saying that the majority of changes occur fast in small populations, followed by long period of stasis, is not consistent with a theory, but is only a conclusion from evidence which does not show transitionals. There is no reason to predict fast changes in small populations, and in fact it was not predicted. The other thing we don’t see, which the theory would predict, is that there would continue to be evidence of transitional attempts even today. Just because something changed once, is no reason for it not to continually try to change again. These organisms have no idea that they don’t need to continue to mutate into new species because new ones already exist. So if hippos became whales, that process should still be evident (happening) today… why not after all?