Creation Bits

Creationists often object to evolution because of the lack of transitional forms. Evolutionists often claim that finding a fossil C in between species A and B will just create two gaps - A to C and C to B, and therefore creationists will never be satisfied. In a recent post David Woetzel responded to this objection, and his post is below (reproduced by permission):

Now let's consider the evolutionist's argument that finding "in betweens" will just create two more gaps, so creationists will never be satisfied that something is transitional. This is a wrong-headed argument. We can establish an absolute yardstick based on the evidence from the field and lab experiments. There is a certain range of genetic variability within a species. Be generous and take the extremes of that (akin to a biblical "kind") and we have a credible gap measurement. Then if we find a morphological breach in the panorama of life that is much larger than that, the creationists can rightly assert that there are "missing links." If the evidence, on the other hand, is that the record of life is largely "continuous," then evolution becomes MUCH more credible. We might not know HOW it happened, but it sure LOOKS like common descent happened. Unfortunately for the darwinists, that is not the case. This is not merely the assessment of the creationists. The page I cited above links to hundreds of quotes by leading evolutionists buttressing the claim that the primary characteristic of the fossil record is "discontinuity."

For a simplistic graphical presentation of this idea, go to:
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/audit/pattern4.htm

Genesis Park has lots of other resources on it for anyone interested, as well as a section on transitional forms.