Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds (Talk.Origins)

Claim CB805:

Since evolution says organisms came from a common ancestor and since they lived in a continuity of environments, we should see a continuum of organisms. There should be a continuous series of animals between cats and dogs, so that one could not tell where cats left off and dogs began.

Source:
 * Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 70-71.

CreationWiki response:

While Talk Origins does make a good point here, Morris was using cats and dogs, which are different families, not just species. Morris' point is that the objective evidence for a continuum of organisms should exist but it does not, not even in the fossil record.
 * Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

This is not true. While there are fossils that have traits of more than one group as defined by our current classification system, they are not always found in rocks dated by Evolutionists as older than more distinct types. Sometimes they are only found in rocks that are “dated” as the same “age” as or younger than more distinct types
 * (Talk.Origins) There are gaps between reptiles and birds
 * Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

This is Talk Origins' best argument but it is still flawed.
 * 1) A more generalized form would have some advantages over a more specialized form in terms of flexibility. During times of change, flexibility in hunting methods would be advantageous.
 * 2) Being at a disadvantage does not necessarily lead to extinction. It would more likely just keep the numbers of that type lower than they would be without the competition.
 * 3) A disadvantage in one area does not necessarily mean a disadvantage in others.

Part of the problem is that determinations are being made on the basis of bones alone. This fact, along with the presupposition of Evolution, could have artificially blurred the lines.

Another problem is that many of these fossils have come from China, where a fake fossil industry is known to exist. These fakes have fooled Evolutionists once before with Archaeoraptor, so how certain can one be about other fossils from China?

Finally, Talk Origins is at best talking about traits shared between classes that were once thought to be unique to one class or the other making it harder to distinguish them from fossils alone. However, when the individual types of fossils are considered there are clear “kinds” with boundaries that have no evidence of crossovers. This is what Morris was referring to.
 * (Talk.Origins) There are gaps between reptiles and birds
 * Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Talk Origins is using a straw man because they are confusing species and Created kinds; the two are not identical. Creationists fully recognize that some species do produce fertile hybrids, and this is used to show that the species in question are the same Created kind. All of the above examples are at the species level and not a problem for creationists since a Created kind is seldom represented by only one species.