• "Since Darwin's time, many of these intermediaries have been found."[2]
• "Researchers have discovered many hundreds of transitional fossils that document various intermediate stages in the evolution of modern species from organisms that are now extinct."[3]
• "In many cases, the fossil record confirms that populations of organisms did, indeed, change gradually over time." ... "At several points in the fossil record, changes in animals and plants occurred over relatively short periods of time."[4]
• "The fossil record provides a record of life on Earth and contains evidence for evolution."[5]

But what about the gaps in the fossil record - the missing links?  These are mentioned to one degree or another in the above texts, but the context usually is that although we have not yet found all of the missing links, they are there.

However, the facts as recorded in the fossil record, well known since Darwin's time, indicate something quite different than a nearly complete series of transitional forms.  Quoting the late Marxist and arch-evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard,

Gould and others went further and developed an alternate theory of evolution called punctuated equilibrium where evolution proceeds in large jumps and jerks rather than the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian small gradual steps.  Their version of evolution was crafted to fit the near-absence of fossil transition data!

Moreover, one of the most prestigious science journals on this planet, the British journal Nature, from time to time weighs in.  In an article in 1993 they investigated a relatively recent evolutionary tree, that of primates, chosen since it was more complete than that of others such as dinosaurs.  The author indicated that there is a "low sampling level" of even primate fossils.  Referring to the last comprehensive study of primate evolution, published only 14 years earlier, they indicated "broad agreement," "universal acceptance," and that an "overwhelming majority of primate paleontologists" agreed on various parts of the standard theories surrounding primate evolution.  However, in less than two decades they challenged this as scientists often do when new evidence becomes available.  Importantly, the Nature author also observed that,

The author goes on to say that "there is still enormous scope for the discovery of new fossil primate species..."[8]

So just how low is the sampling level of this fossil record that is said to be the best evidence for evolution?  The Nature article cites a prior study that showed only 3.8% of assumed primate fossil species were represented by real discovered fossils!  When 'modern' primates were examined the study showed only 3.4% had been discovered.[9] 

The effect on how we view origins and common descent was graphically demonstrated by a hypothetical ancestral tree, shown below, that models a slightly smaller 3% sampling rate.[10]  The dotted overall shape depicts a standard universal common descent tree, with the common ancestor being at the bottom and the modern living species being at the top.  The dotted lines represent the assumed, but not yet found species.  The ten solid lines represent species where fossils have actually been found.  (The 48 solid lines at the top represent those living today, not fossils.)
 

 

Note that not only are the bottom parts of the tree, including the very base (or common ancestor,) missing, but there is no evidence for most of the assumed tree or any direct connections!  In this example, of the approximately 333 assumed ancestral species, evidence has been found for only 10, and those are not directly connected. 

But there is more.  Even the actual fossils, as modeled by the 10 solid lines above, are only fragmentary in most cases.  Thus we are left with the "difficulties of interpreting fragmentary fossils"[11] to infer primate ancestry.  Additionally, rarely have ANY details of organisms been preserved beyond bones and teeth!  Put another way, if we did not have the dotted lines in place (and in the real world we do not,) how could we accurately determine how to connect the lines representing found fossils?

The Nature author, in concluding his discussion on primate evolution, notes:

Were you told this at school?  Was it or something similar in the textbooks?   Ancestral relationships are not as rock-solid as you and your children may have been led to believe.  The Wall Street Journal reports editorially that: 

So which of the pro-evolutionists' answers is correct?  At the very least, given the contradictory answers and the competing theories of evolution, we should be honest about massive and systematic holes in the fossil record.

Our schools should be teaching the whole truth--both strengths and weaknesses.