We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps (Talk.Origins)

Claim CC201:


 * If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.

Source:
 * Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pg. 78.
 * Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things no. 6, p. 15-22,

CreationWiki response:

Talk.Origins is missing the point. Neither source is saying that the rate of change would be absolutely constant. And neither source is saying that a perfect record would be preserved. The point is that small continual changes would have had to occur but instead at critical points we find gaps. What is particularly important is that the gaps occur where a creation model predicts that they should, while evolutionists need secondary hypotheses to explain them.

One should also remember that the biggest gaps cannot be covered by the explanations offered. The assertion is that the gaps represent short quick bursts of "evolutionary" change in a subset of a group. However the gaps in question are the giant leaps such as the supposed leap from reptiles of whatever kind to birds, between which are nothing. The whole supposed "Darwinian tree" is full of these gaps in the fossil record. The gap between amphibians and land vertebrates is another example. These are not "missing leaps" that can be covered by the fast "quick change" postulated.

There are no fossils to cover the supposed transition between the major mammalian groups either. There are varieties of felines, canines, equines, rodents, and so on, in the fossils, but nothing "in between".

Furthermore, argument from imperfection of the fossil record is invalid. The book "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record"(edited by Stephen Donovan and Christopher Paul Wiley; reviewed by Douglas Palmer in New Scientist) points out that we know most of the fossil record. Palmer commented on the book by saying:

So any palaeontologists suffering from feelings of inadequacy should seek reassurance in this stimulating collection of essays. For the price of a few tabs of Viagra, you can have a permanent reminder that the fossil record is more respectable than it might seem. For example, in groups that leave easily fossilised remains, such as mammals and molluscs, more than 60% of species, 80% of genera and 90% of families have been discovered.... So cheer up. As Chris Paul proclaims in his introductory essay, the fossil record is perfectly adequate as a record of past life on Earth."

While there are a number of examples of varieties of the same created kind forming a well-preserved sequence, most can not objectively be considered sequences. In many cases evolutionists have to ignore their own dating methods to form a "sequence", and in other cases they fill in the gap with fragments of teeth and bone.
 * Reference: Transitional fossils are lacking

First of all in needs to be noted that progressive creationists do claim that there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

However with regards to young-earth creation this is a case of your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong. The flaw in Talk.Origins' reason here is that they are assuming that their theoretical timescale is real. If instead most of the fossils were killed and buried in one year by the Genesis Flood, then only one creation event would be needed.