r.d. heilman

Transitional fossils is somewhat misleading. It's possible
to find examples of intermediate fossils which have traits
of two different forms, but while they are "in between"
form. there is no evidence to show that any of these
forms left any descendants. And given that some 95%
of all species became extinct, there is no evidence to
demonstrate these "in between" forms are exceptions.
Furthermore, there are numerous "living fossils" that
are little changed or unchanged from their ancestors
that lived millions even hundred of million years ago.

Until Gould and Eldredge, the true nature of the
fossil record was basically ignored. Sudden appearance
long periods of stasis and abrupt extinction was no
evidence when examples of change were required.

Living fossils are real. This is hard empirical evidence.
The ancestor/descendant scenario is strictly a theorical
ideal based upon an overarching paradigm where there
is no solid line of graduated links between any of the
_assumed_ ancestors & the later descendents.
Similarities between organisms and the position in the
fossil record is one method of determining ancestor -
descendant relationships. But the old addage that
similarity is denotes ancestory is just that an old addage.

So, in the final analysis, the evidence for creation by
some intelligent agency is superior to evolution.