Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."
Let's test his assumption. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you. What have you got to lose?
And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!
Man is an ape-like creature. Do you have a source? SInce we have numerous examples of transitionals from apes to man, it seems someone has misquoted Solly. As you see from the OP, there is a great deal of genetic and anatomical evidence, but is you like, I can show you the transitional nature of hominin fossils. Would you like to see?
Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."
Quote-mining, especially when you haven't actually read the original work, is dangerous:
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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
"Evolution as Fact and Theory" in
Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 124.
One dishonest trick in quote-mining, is to cut something out of a sentence to make it look like something it is not:
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
As you might know, Eldredge is who Gould is referring to when he says "we." Eldredge has documented numerous transitional forms.
Even honest creationists admit that there are numerous transitionals.
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 third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. 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.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Young Earth Creationist Kurt Wise
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Notice that your creationists offer no evidence for their beliefs, but an honest creationist cites numerous examples of transitionals.
