The Fossils for Human Evolution

[chad kincham]

The author of the "falsibility criterion" claims that evolutionary theory is falsible. For example, it predicts that a well-adapted population in a constant environment will change very little, a prediction that has frequently been confirmed. It also predicts that such population will change if the environment changes, which has also been confirmed.

And I just showed you a testable case regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear, which has been confirmed by fossil, embryological, and genetic data.

Perhaps you don't know what "science" means. What do you think it means?

On the other hand, here’s what other prominent evolutionists say, that it’s not falsifiable:

Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper's early work attempts to solve the problem of demarcation and offera clear criterion that distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical or mythological claims.


Popper strongly supports the idea that a theory in science must be testable and, for the tests to be valid, they must be capable of falsifying the theory if it is not correct. It follows that a true scientific theory, in order to be tested, must be about a process that can be repeated and observed either directly or indirectly. One-time-only historical events may be true, but they are not part of science for there is no way of repeating them, observing them, and subjecting them to testing. Also, for a theory to be testable, it must be possible for those conducting the tests to use it in making predictions about the outcome of the tests. If a theory is not suitable for use by scientists to make specific predictions, it is not a scientific theory. Many scientists agree with Karl Popper on the testability requirement for a scientific theory because, without testing, there can be no unimpassioned selection among available alternatives.


A major reason that the theory of evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory seems to be that it is so plastic it can explain anything and everything.


Ernst Mayr made some startling admissions about Darwin's original model of mutation and natural selection. He said, "Popper is right; this model is so good that it can explain everything, as Popper has rightly complained." This relates to the requirement in science that a theory or model must make exclusionary predictions. If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science. For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions.

(He’s referring in part there, to Darwinian gradualism vs. Gould’s punctuated equilibria evolution- they can’t both be right, and contradict each other)

On the same subject, Dr. Fraser said, "It would seem to me that there have been endless statements made and the only thing I have clearly agreed with through the whole day has been the statement made by Karl Popper, namely, that the real inadequacy of evolution, esthetically and scientifically, is that you can explain anything you want by changing your variable around.


Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar calls Popper "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived."15 At a seminar held at Cambridge University to discuss Stephen Gould's ideas on evolution (April 30 - May 2, 1984), Medawar summed up the meeting with the observation that no theory, no matter how well-established, can be considered exempt from Popperian challenge.

Herman Bondi has stated, "There is no more to science than its method, and there is no more to its method than Popper has said."18

What does Karl Popper say about evolution theory? In his autobiography Unended Quest he writes:


I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme -- a possible framework for testable scientific theories. It suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.

This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.

Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression, it is not so very much better than the theistic view of adaptation: it is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory but metaphysical. But its value for science as a metaphysical research programme is very great, especially if it is admitted that it may be criticized and improved upon.19

(Excerpt from Luther Sutherland’s book Darwin’s Enigma, of interviews with prominent evolutionists, that he put online for free):

Darwin's Enigma - Chap# 1

 

[The Barbarian]

On the other hand, here’s what other prominent evolutionists say, that it’s not falsifiable:

Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper's early work attempts to solve the problem of demarcation and offera clear criterion that distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical or mythological claims.

Popper strongly supports the idea that a theory in science must be testable and, for the tests to be valid, they must be capable of falsifying the theory if it is not correct.

Well, let's take a look. Popper was a philosopher, and did not study biology, until someone suggested that he take another look at it...

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
Karl Popper Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355

Which is what Mayr meant when he said that Popper is right. Natural selection is not a tautology, since it can be used to make predictions that can (and have been) tested and confirmed.

It's no different than a creationist declaring that the theory of gravity is a tautology, since when we find rocks piled around the base of a cliff, we answer the question of how they got there by gravity. The difference is, gravity doesn't scare creationists.

Sutherland's article is full of goofs like this one...

Geology and paleontology held great expectations for Charles Darwin, although in 1859 he admitted that they presented the strongest single evidence against his theory. Fossils were a perplexing puzzlement to him because they did not reveal any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a common ancestor, proof which he needed to support his theory. Although fossils were an enigma to Darwin, he ignored the problem and found comfort in the faith that future explorations would reverse the situation and ultimately prove his theory correct.

Not only did Darwin not ignore the issue, he put a chapter about it in his book. As you learned, Darwin's prediction, based on the evidence, and his theory, was spectacularly correct, as even honest creationists now admit.

It's ongoing. When I was young, we had very few or no fossil transitionals for:
Land animals to whales
Apes to humans
Reptiles to mammals
Wasps to ants
Anapsids to turtles
Salamanders to Frogs
Fish to amphibians
And many others. We have all of those, now. Darwin's prediction was correct.

I could show you some more of Sutherland's errors. Would you like to see some more?

 

[SilverBear]

I await the day you respond to the subject of the video.

don't hold your breath waiting

 

[SilverBear]

I Agree - there is no evidence that panspermia or abiogenesis took place.

Why would it? anyone with even a minimal amount of education on teh topic knows that neither is part of the theory of evolution.

That all life on earth started off as living organisms that came from space, an evolved first into marine life, then land animals then mankind. Heck they still haven't discovered where RNA came from _ which is the building block of life.

actually RNA has been found to spontaneously form in Miller–Urey experiments

Last year they decided it too came from space.

who?

And a T-Rex evolving into a chicken!

False. The modern chicken is the closes living relative of the T-Rex

And the evolution of the whale, evolving from sea life into land life, then evolving back to the sea.

as clearly shown in the fossil record

Evolution does not make sense at all.

you have to actually look at it first.

The fish crawled out of the sea, grew limbs and lungs, to evolve into hundreds of thousands of species that existed millions of years ago - and continuing to evolve into the billions of known species. So why should it even need reproductive system, or need to eat, or have vocal, thinking, or hearing capabilities - they really have no answer for that.

to reproduce
to gain energy and for building materials for growth
to vocalize
to think
to hear[/quote][/quote]

 

[The Barbarian]

Why would it? anyone with even a minimal amount of education on teh topic knows that neither is part of the theory of evolution.

Today's winner.

 

[chad kincham]

Well, let's take a look. Popper was a philosopher, and did not study biology, until someone suggested that he take another look at it...

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
Karl Popper Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355

Which is what Mayr meant when he said that Popper is right. Natural selection is not a tautology, since it can be used to make predictions that can (and have been) tested and confirmed.

It's no different than a creationist declaring that the theory of gravity is a tautology, since when we find rocks piled around the base of a cliff, we answer the question of how they got there by gravity. The difference is, gravity doesn't scare creationists.

Sutherland's article is full of goofs like this one...

Geology and paleontology held great expectations for Charles Darwin, although in 1859 he admitted that they presented the strongest single evidence against his theory. Fossils were a perplexing puzzlement to him because they did not reveal any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a common ancestor, proof which he needed to support his theory. Although fossils were an enigma to Darwin, he ignored the problem and found comfort in the faith that future explorations would reverse the situation and ultimately prove his theory correct.

Not only did Darwin not ignore the issue, he put a chapter about it in his book. As you learned, Darwin's prediction, based on the evidence, and his theory, was spectacularly correct, as even honest creationists now admit.

It's ongoing. When I was young, we had very few or no fossil transitionals for:
Land animals to whales
Apes to humans
Reptiles to mammals
Wasps to ants
Anapsids to turtles
Salamanders to Frogs
Fish to amphibians
And many others. We have all of those, now. Darwin's prediction was correct.

I could show you some more of Sutherland's errors. Would you like to see some more?

I’m not naive. Popper changed his mind because he was intimidated into it.

And, the whole reason for Goulds PE hypothesis, was because fossil transitions are missing in all the important places - yes, they have claimed transitions - but “only at the nodes and branches” of the evolutionary tree, but for major transitions, nada.

. “[T]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils” (1977, p. 13)

And:

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (1977, p. 24).

Darwin’s theory of phyletic gradualism has failed completely.

In his theory transitions in the fossil record would be the rule, he said - not the exception - every animal should blend into every other animal, there should be “many fine gradations” found between each species.

The platypus’ features would be the rule: it lays eggs but is a mammal, and has a tail like a beaver and webbed feet like a duck, has venomous spurs, and has ten sex chromosomes.

You still have no valid transitions from ape to man, nor even from land animal to whale.

Also, insects and plants are as problematic as the Cambrian explosion - appearing suddenly sans transitions and in the modern form.

This paleontologist exhaustively shows in 50 minutes, just how bankrupt Darwinian gradualism is, from alpha to omega, in every category:

 

[The Barbarian]

I’m not naive.

If you think Popper was intimidated, you are very, very naive. He has a reputation of being an extremely opinionated and stubborn man.

And, the whole reason for Goulds PE hypothesis, was because fossil transitions are missing in all the important places - yes, they have claimed transitions - but “only at the nodes and branches” of the evolutionary tree, but for major transitions, nada.

You were misled about that, too. Gould says that there are examples of species-to species transistionals. Even honest YE creationists like Dr. Todd Wood and Dr. Kurt Wise admit that. Wise even gives us a long list of known transitionals for many different groups. Would you like me to show you that, again?

“[T]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record

So Gould doesn't say there aren't any transitional forms after all? But you said "nada." Do you know what that word means?

Darwin’s theory of phyletic gradualism has failed completely.

That' assumption is wrong, too, according to Dr. Wise. Would you like me to show you that, again? Or would you like me to show you some examples?

In his theory transitions in the fossil record would be the rule, he said - not the exception - every animal should blend into every other animal, there should be “many fine gradations” found between each species.

And he documents this, showing that "species" is a difficult thing to define for just that reason. We see half-species and quarter-species, and all sorts of intermediate forms. Which Darwin documented.

The platypus’ features would be the rule: it lays eggs but is a mammal,

Monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals. Just what you claimed did not exist.

and has a tail like a beaver

Perhaps you've never seen a beaver's tail:

and webbed feet like a duck,

So you've never seen a duck's foot?

has venomous spurs,

Yes, it's transitional between monotremes (which otherwise don't have venom) and eutherian mammals, some of which are venomous. Again, exactly what you claimed did not exist.
Venomous mammal - Wikipedia

and has ten sex chromosomes.

Interestingly, variations in sex chromosome number in mammals supports phylogenies derived by other sources of data:
Mammalian sex chromosomes: evolution of organization and function - PubMed

 

[The Barbarian]

You still have no valid transitions from ape to man, nor even from land animal to whale.

You were lied to about that, as well. Here's YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids).
...
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early
bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Also, insects and plants are as problematic as the Cambrian explosion

What do you think is "problematic" about the Cambrian explosion? At one time, it seemed all those body plans emerged in just a few million years. But since the Ediacaran fauna were discovered, that's out the window.

Rhyniognatha, a genus of arthropods having characteristics of both insects and centipedes, are pretty close to the line that led to the first insects. This genus might actually be insects. Fossil record, genetics, and embryonic development show that the evolution of hexapods occurred the process of tagmosis. Learn about it here:
https://treehozz.com/what-is-tagmatization-in-biology

This paleontologist exhaustively shows in 50 minutes, just how bankrupt Darwinian gradualism is, from alpha to omega, in every category:

Why not tell us what you think Doc Gunter's most persuasive point is, and we'll take a look at it. And if you don't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think he's got anything right?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm assuming that by "plant" you mean vascular plants. Multicellular plants have been around a very long time in the sea,but land plants are a bit more complex. There were a lot of "experiments" early on, and they converged into several types still existing. Learn about it here:

The first plants

If, on the other hand, you mean the first photosynthetic multicellular organisms (which are technically plants), let me know. That's kinda interesting,too.

 

[chad kincham]

You were misled about that, too. Gould says that there are examples of species-to species transistionals. Even honest YE creationists like Dr. Todd Wood and Dr. Kurt Wise admit that. Wise even gives us a long list of known transitionals for many different groups. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Sorry, but it’s transitions between species that’s needed.

Any evolution that leaves a bacterium a bacterium, a finch a finch, etc, is micro, not macro, evolution.

Bacteria are the most numerous life form with the highest mutation rate, yet no where on earth is a bacteria transmuting to a higher life form.

If you weren’t convinced by the video I posted that painstakingly and exhaustively shows that gradualism fails on every level, then it’s obvious that you don’t care what the real facts are.

And if gradualism is found in the fossils, then Gould’s PE is redundant and irrelevant, since the theory exists solely to explain the dearth of transitions in the record, by postulating that evolution is in stasis for long periods of time, punctuated by short and intense evolution in isolated populations that leave no fossil evidence.

And both Gould and Popper experienced the full wrath of the entire evolutionist establishment over their respective remarks, because creationists were using them to refute Darwinian gradualism, and they were forced to backpedal or become pariahs and persona non grata.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, but it’s transitions between species that’s needed.

And as Gould remarks, they do exist. In horses, forams, ammonites, and others. But of course, that depends on two things:
1. huge populations of organisms
2. conditions that favor fossilization.

So it's not remarkable that species-to-species transitionals aren't common. And of course, if YE creationism were true, there wouldn't be any at all.

Hence YE creationist Kurt Wise's comment that the huge number of transitionals and transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Any evolution that leaves a bacterium a bacterium, a finch a finch, etc, is micro, not macro, evolution.

No. That's a common misunderstanding, but it's wrong. That would mean the transition from Austrolopitihecines to humans would be "microevolution." It is, after all, leaving a primate a primate. Most species of finches differ more genetically from each other than say humans and chimpanzees do.

Again you've been badly mislead about these scientific terms.

Macroevolution
Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Online Dictionary of Biology

Microevolution is evolution happening within a species, that does not produce new species.

Bacteria are the most numerous life form with the highest mutation rate, yet no where on earth is a bacteria transmuting to a higher life form.

"Higher" has no such meaning in science. And you're very wrong about bacteria:

Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015 Apr; 24: 21–28.
On The Evolution of Bacterial Multicellularity
Abstract
Multicellularity is one of the most prevalent evolutionary innovations and nowhere is this more apparent than in the bacterial world, which contains many examples of multicellular organisms in a surprising array of forms. Due to their experimental accessibility and the large and diverse genomic data available, bacteria enable us to probe fundamental aspects of the origins of multicellularity.

It's not the only form of evolution we see in bacteria. You see, in your body are huge numbers of endosybiotic bacteria living in your cells. You can't survive without them,and they can't survive without you. They retain their circular bacterial DNA, and reproduce independently of your cells, but they are an intrinsic part of you. Plants have them as well, and also chloroplasts, which are also endosymbiotic bacteria. Again, they have evolved with plants to the point that neither can live without the other.

"So",you might say;"that's a nice story, but has anyone ever seen such a thing evolve?" Turns out, we have...

Journal of Cellular Physiology Oct. 1976
Endosymbiosis in amoebae: Recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components
Abstract
A strain of large, free-living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival. Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement.

And if gradualism is found in the fossils, then Gould’s PE is redundant and irrelevant, since the theory exists solely to explain the dearth of transitions in the record,

No, that's wrong. It also explains why allopatric speciation is the norm. That is, why species tend to evolve in small, isolated populations, which was observed earlier by Ernst Mayr. Turns out isolation and the founder effect is important. Sympatric speciation is not unknown, but it's relatively rare.

by postulating that evolution is in stasis for long periods of time

Something predicted by Darwin, who pointed out that a well-adapted population in a relatively constant environment, would be kept from evolving much because of natural selection.

punctuated by short and intense evolution in isolated populations that leave no fossil evidence.

As you learned, under some conditions they have left abundant fossil evidence. And as noted earlier, if YE creationism were true, there wouldn't be any at all.

Fossilization being a rare event for most species, the rarity (but not absence) of species-to-species transitional fossils, with more transitionals at higher taxa, and long series of transitional forms over time, is precisely what statistical analysis would predict.

 

[chad kincham]

No, that's wrong. It also explains why allopatric speciation is the norm. That is, why species tend to evolve in small, isolated populations, which was observed earlier by Ernst Mayr. Turns out isolation and the founder effect is important. Sympatric speciation is not unknown, but it's relatively rare.

WildLife biologists work with endangered species, and state that isolated populations lose genetic information and variety - the opposite of PE.

Gradualism is not seen in the fossil record, period:
Gould said:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution” (1980, p. 127). “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (1977, p. 24). “[T]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils” (1977, p. 13).
His study of the fossil record led to his rejection of gradualistic evolution altogether.

David B. Kitts, the late evolutionary geologist, paleontologist, and professor of geology and the history of science at Oklahoma University, said, “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them” (1974, p. 466, emp. added). Concerning the evolution of humans, Richard Lewontin, research professor at the Museum of Comparitive Zoology at Harvard, admitted, “The main problem is the poor fossil record. Despite a handful of hominid fossils stretching back 4m years or so, we can’t be sure that any of them are on the main ancestral line to us. Many of them could have been evolutionary side branches” (2008, emp. added). Evolutionist and senior science writer for Scientific American, Kate Wong, admitted, “The origin of our genus, Homo, is…ased on…meager evidence…. [W]ith so little to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever” (2012, pp. 31-32). Editor-in-chief of Scientific American, Mariette DiChristina, said, “Pieces of our ancient forebears generally are hard to come by, however. Scientists working to interpret our evolution often have had to make do with studying a fossil toe bone here or a jaw there” (2012, 306[4]:4). Colin Patterson literally “wrote the textbook” on evolution. He was the paleontologist who served as the editor of the professional journal published by the British Museum of Natural History in London. In response to a letter asking why he did not include examples of transitional fossils in his book, he responded, “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument” (1979, emp. added). Evolutionary zoologist of Oxford University, Mark Ridley, went so far as to say, “[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualistic or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” (1981, 90:832).

 

[The Barbarian]

WildLife biologists work with endangered species, and state that isolated populations lose genetic information and variety

Yes. It's called the "founder effect." An essential part of allopatric speciation, which is how PE works.

The founder effect is the reduction in genetic variation that results when a small subset of a large population is used to establish a new colony. The new population may be very different from the original population, both in terms of its genotypes and phenotypes. In some cases, the founder effect plays a role in the emergence of new species.
Founder Effect

the opposite of PE.

You've been misled about that. The point of PE is that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.

Gradualism is not seen in the fossil record, period:

Hmm... Gould said...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260 (my emphasis)

If you were right, they wouldn't exist at all. And you're touting someone who says transitional fossils are "abundant." As you know, your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits that the large number of transitions and transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Should I show you that, again?

Gould mentions horses, ammonites, and forams as examples of gradual evolution.

David B. Kitts, the late evolutionary geologist, paleontologist, and professor of geology and the history of science at Oklahoma University, said, “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record.

That's what Darwin wrote. But he predicted that as time went on, we would find them. When I was a young student, we had few or no transitions for:
Other hominids to humans
Reptiles to birds
Reptiles to mammals
Fish to amphibians
Land animals to whales
(very long list)

Now we have all of these and many more. Darwin's prediction was spot on. Consider that every month numerous new fossil species are found. It would be absurd to think will ever find all of them. It's much harder to miss the series of higher taxa that your fellow creationist thinks is such good evidence for macroevolution.

Colin Patterson literally “wrote the textbook” on evolution.

And here we all thought it was Darwin. But here's what Patterson says:

The following quote appears in at least one Creationist book:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.


This quote is from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The next few sentences are:

"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
So, what Patterson is saying is that perhaps modern birds descended from the species Archaeopteryx, or perhaps they descended from a cousin species. He just doesn't know how to prove which is the case. Therefore, he refuses to make a claim he can't fully back up.

Dr. Patterson does believe that there are transitional fossils, as witness this quote from the book in question:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes ..."
Quote: Colin Patterson on Transitional Fossils

The quote-miners have fooled you once again. Here's an important thing: A transitional form is a form that is intermediate between two groups. It might not be the precise ancestor of the later group, but only closely related to that ancestor. Archaepteryx, for example, is a dinosaur that is very close to the line that led to birds, but is probably not the ancestor of birds itself. It would be remarkable if were were to be lucky enough to find a fossil of the very first bird or its direct ancestor.

Evolutionary zoologist of Oxford University, Mark Ridley, went so far as to say, “[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualistic or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation” (1981, 90:832).

As you see, Stephen Gould and Colin Patterson do consider the fossil record as evidence for evolutionary theory. The inserted capital letter shows that your quote was altered by truncating off something in the same way your other quotes were edited.

 

[chad kincham]

You've been misled about that. The point of PE is that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.

Macro evolution of new body plans into a higher life form requires a quantum leap in genetic information.

An isolated population that loses genetic information and variety is not ever going to result in a higher and more complex animal.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

Macro evolution of new body plans into a higher life form requires a quantum leap in genetic information.

An isolated population that loses genetic information and variety is not ever going to result in a higher and more complex animal.

There is no such thing as "Higher Life Forms".

The "Great Chain of Being" was dismissed as nonsense before Darwin was born.

 

[The Barbarian]

Macro evolution of new body plans into a higher life form requires a quantum leap in genetic information.

That's a superstition, too...

Evolution of the chordate body plan: New insights from phylogenetic analyses of deuterostome phyla
Evolution of the chordate body plan: New insights from phylogenetic analyses of deuterostome phyla

Molecular geneticist Marty Cohn and colleagues demonstrated that the mutations that produced limblessness in snakes do so by altering the expression of a gene called Shh. This gene operates in embryos, including humans, where, among other tasks, it establishes the position of the four limb buds (or fin buds in the case of fishes). A change in the location of where Shh functions in snake embryos prevents the establishment of limb buds, neatly excising a specific sub-program of development. Meanwhile, other functions of Shh, including its critical role in patterning the brain, remain intact.
New Body Plan Emergence: An Evolutionary Biologist Tackles an ID Argument Against Common Ancestry - Articles

Comparative developmental genetics and the evolution of arthropod body plans
Abstract
The arthropods display a wide range of morphological diversity, varying tagmosis, as well as other aspects of the body plan, such as appendage and cuticular morphology. Here we review the roles of developmental regulatory genes in the evolution of arthropod morphology, with an emphasis on what is known from morphologically diverse species. Examination of tagmatic evolution reveals that these changes have been accompanied by changes in the expression patterns of Hox genes. In contrast, review of the modifications to wing morphology seen in insects shows that these body plan changes have generally favored alterations in downstream target genes. These and other examples are used to discuss the evolutionary implications of comparative developmental genetic data.
Comparative developmental genetics and the evolution of arthropod body plans - PubMed

Tagmosis, the alteration of body plans by modification of body segments, is a common way for drastic changes in body plan occurs by relatively simple genetic changes.

An isolated population that loses genetic information and variety is not ever going to result in a higher and more complex animal.

No, that's a false belief, too. For example two or possibly three species of fruit flies colonized Hawaii. Yet about one-third of the genetic diversity of the entire world's fruit flies is found in the evolved species in Hawaii. Exactly what creationists say is impossible.

 

[fred tacky]

The reason we will never see a complete skeleton of a humanoid ape-man is because none have been found in relative completeness - lying on its side with all bones in correct anatomical position.

Supposed 'ape-men' fossils are ALWAYS found as bits and pieces scattered such that there is no way to prove the pieces belong to one individual.

In his book, Book: Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind, the discoverer of Lucy, D. Johanson, admitted as much:

"I BELIEVE, although I CANNOT PROVE IT, that they represent the upper legs of one individual."

 

[fred tacky]

In his book: Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy, admitted he has doubts about ape-men fossils because the remains are bits and pieces with no way to tell if they belong to one individual and how those pieces should fit:

"Yes, there are older hominid fossils, but they are all fragments. Everything that has been reconstructed from them has had to be done by matching up those little pieces - a tooth here, a bit of jaw there, maybe a complete skull from somewhere else, plus a leg bone from some other place. The fitting together has been done by scientists who know those bones as well as I know my own hand. And yet, when you consider that such reconstruction may consist of pieces from a COUPLE DOZEN INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY HAVE LIVED HUNDREDS OF MILES APART AND MAY HAVE BEEN SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS IN TIME, well, when you look at the complete individual you've just put together, you have to say to yourself 'JUST HOW REAL IS HE?'"

 

[fred tacky]

Other scientists have the same doubts:

"The actual bones of Lucy are dark brown in this reconstruction. The rest are plaster casts based on other bones that, says Zihlman, may BELONG TO CREATURES OF SEVERAL SPECIES."
Ref: Article: Flesh and Bone (Discover Magazine, 1992)

Note: Lucy is the name assigned to a COMPOSITE of several individuals, therefore, not considered genuine evidence for evolution.

 

[fred tacky]

Personally, I believe the bits and pieces of bones are pieces of ape fossils, not 'ape-men' which is an artificial construct of those who want so badly to believe that apes evolved into humans OR want to take credit for a sham discovery.

Remember, humans are fallible and corrupt, even bored 'scientists' who have nothing better to do than to go over bits and pieces of dry bones for their entire career and may want to 'spice things up' to gain an audience. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.

Don't trust human wisdom.