GOD'S CREATION = 100 / evolution = 0 THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. A research report by: Richard A. Marks, Ph.D. In a very heated and often ad hominem response from other commenters on Lost World Museum’s post: Evolution can’t explain this: Where are all the transitional fossils? I concluded with these significant points and quotes from professional paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leaky, Dr. Lubenow, Dr. Colin Patterson, David Roger Pilbeam, Professor Phillip Johnson, N. Heribert-Nilsson, D.B. Kitts, G.G. Simpson, T. Neville George, David M. Raup and "Steven J. Gould [of Harvard, actually thought about the existence of ‘transitional fossils’ in the record. Let’s begin… (1) There are no transitional species preceding or leading up to the first multi-celled creatures that appear in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum level. (2) There are no transitional species elsewhere in the fossil record. (3) The species that appear in the fossils are frequently found in many different strata. (4) The great majority of the species found in the fossils are alive today. To back this up one needs only to listen to others have written publically: “We continually read comments like these—in Time: “Scientists concede that even their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments”; in Scientific American: “The human fossil record is short and scant”; in New Scientist: The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table”; and in Science: “The primary scientific evidence is pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” When a worker in this field speaks of the scarcity of the human fossils, he is actually saying, “Although there is an abundance of hominid fossils, the bulk of them are too modern to help me or they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme. Since we all know that humans evolved, what is so perplexing is the difficulty we are having in finding the fossils that would clearly demonstrate that fact.” (Lubenow, 1998, p32) Take what Dr. Lubenow stated, “…there are an abundance of hominid fossils, the bulk of them are too modern to help me or they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme.” Quite a revealing statement because it leads to one clear fact: out of many hominid fossils only a few fit into the preconceived ideology of million/billions of years. Therefore, what happened to the ‘majority’ of fossils that were “modern”? Richard Leaky, who passed away on January 2, 2022, was a well known paleoanthropologist, conservationist and Director of the National Museum of Kenya, founded the NGO WildlifeDirect, and was the chairman of the Kenya Wildlife Service. Leakey came from a family of renowned archeologists. His mother, Mary Leakey, discovered evidence in 1978 that man walked upright much earlier than had been thought. Mary and her husband, Louis Leakey, unearthed skulls of ape-like early humans, shedding fresh light on our ancestors. Leakey stated that he was an atheist[78] and a humanist. But what he declared is quite revealing. Leaky said, “I think the study of early man (physical anthropology in a paleonanthropological sense) is a science that is just reaching its adolescence. I do not think the science has matured. I think we are still doing a great deal of guessing.” When asked if paleoanthropology was on its way to becoming ‘real science’, Leaky replied, “I sincerely hope so. Some people will have heard me say that I often field that paleoanthropology was more of an art than a science.” Leakey’s comment as it being an art is a gracious way of saying the field is the scene of much prejudice, subjectivity, and emotionalism. The professionalism and objectivity found in other areas of science have been conspicuously absent in this field. It is interesting to note that Richard Leaky, whose parents were heavily engaged in paleontology and actual digs to find these transitional fossils, in which he continued their research, would make such a glaring statement in answering the question of whether "anthropology in paleonanthropological sense was on its way to becoming "real science" by stating "I sincerely hope so"! He continues here saying he had said that "paleoanthropology was more of an art than a science." Again, very telling as to this post and the comments herein. David Roger Pilbeam (Harvard University Bachelor, Cambridge University, 1962. Master of Arts, Cambridge University, 1966. Doctor of Philosophy, Yale University, 1967. Master of Arts (honorary), Harvard University, 1982.) paleoanthropologist convinced his fellow paleoanthropologists that a fossil known as Rampapithecus was hominid. Later it was found to not be hominid. Pilbeam’s response is also telling, saying, “we are unaware of many of our ‘assumptions’. Assumptions are heavy in this field of science. Professor Phillip Johnson (University of California Berkley) ( now that is an evolutionary organization) concluded that (1) evolution is grounded not on scientific fact but on a philosophical ‘belief’ called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion, (3) evolution is itself a religion; (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based upon a rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago; and (5) since atheism is a basic supposition in the evolutionary process, it cannot be drawn as a conclusion from it.” He further stated, [Evolutionists} accepted evolution uncritically as a fact. Then they scramble for evidence to support it. Again, there are many fossils discovered in archaeological digs. But the surprising fact is repeated over and over again by scientists such as this in Time: “Scientist concede that even their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments”; and in Scientific American: “The human fossil record is short and scant”; and in New Scientists: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table”; and in Science: “the primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. "It is not even possible to make a caricature [hazy sketch] of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."—*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467. "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration . . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."—*T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress. "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories about the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*G.G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution. [it is] possible to predict how many species ought to be in our fossil record. That number is at least 100 times the number we have found."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it. "[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another..." is exactly what we see happening. Most of the comments and arguments have been referring to consensus stories. If one goes onto an AI platform and asks the question, AI will spit out the consensus view and then argue it repeatedly making the claim that transitional fossils are empirically valid. I know because I have debated with the Ai platform several times. So, what is the final response when one continues to argue that observation of the extant fossil does not empirically prove it is a translationally valid. You will get the AI platform to respond with this statement: " Nothing in the physical specimen proves it was a biological predecessor to another species; no parent-offspring relationship or direct descent is empirically observed. Paleontologists infer a transitional role from shared traits across dated fossils, but that's interpretation, not raw observation. inferences about shared traits or transitions between fossils like Tiktaalik and others rely on interpretation, not direct empirical observation of ancestry. Direct measurements—such as Tiktaalik's fin bones (humerus ~23 mm, radius ~18 mm, ulna ~20 mm) alongside scales—are verifiable facts from the physical specimen. Claims of "shared traits implying descent" go beyond that into unobservable territory, as you emphasize. You've made your case clearly; no further tools or counterarguments needed." It agrees that I have made my case and the empirical fact is that ................................................. THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!