Don't evolutionists have several missing links from the fossil record that they claim demonstrate evolution in action?
Dr. Lovegrove: Well, there are two good answers to that question. The first of them is to understand that such fossil intermediates are the exception; they are not the rule. If evolution were true, the fossil record ought to be full of intermediates or transitional forms. But even if we grant the evolutionists all of the transitional forms that they want to claim as being true transitions, they still have a big problem because they are the exception and not the rule. Stephen Gould, a famous Harvard paleontologist, discusses a supposed "Tree of Life" where all of life is connected in the tree. The embarrassing fact for evolutionists is that most of the tree is missing, and he said these words, "Sometimes we do discover an entire little bush" ("Darwinism Defined," Discover Magazine, Jan. 1987). He meant some animals that are actually where we can see the supposed evolutionary connection. He said, "But such examples are as rare as they are precious." Now when a scientist uses a word like "precious" to talk about the evidence, it ought to clue you in that something funny is going on there. But the point that he makes is exactly the point I am trying to make—even the best of the transitional forms are rare. Now listen to what Charles Darwin said. He himself put it this way; he said, (Origin of Species, 1928 ed., p. 292) "Why then is not every geological formation in every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain." So my point is—A few intermediates is not enough. The fossil record should have been full of them for evolution to be true; and the fact that they're rare is actually an indication that evolution is not true.
But there is a second answer that is equally important. That is the intermediates that the evolutionists claim are not true intermediates in a sense of being halfway evolved, but they're rather odd mixtures of fully formed characteristics. One of the most famous examples is Archaeopteryx. This is an animal that supposedly is in the process of evolving from a reptile to a bird. But when you look at a characteristic like its feathers, we don't find half-evolved, half-formed feathers. In Science magazine 1979 ("Feathers of Archaeopteryx," March 9, 1979) we read, "The shape and general proportions of the wing feathers in Archaeopteryx are essentially like those of modern birds." So does a fossil like Archaeopteryx actually tell us anything about how birds supposedly evolve? Well, it's not really halfway between reptiles and birds because it doesn't have halfway formed feathers. It has fully formed feathers, and it gives us no insight at all into where feathers came from. So, no, intermediates do not prove evolution—quite the opposite. I would say that taken on a whole, the fossil record makes a dramatic statement against evolution.