Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?

It sounds like a clearer emphasis needs to be made of what Percy mentioned above to distinguish a view which incorporates both long periods of morphological stasis and periods of morphological change (continuous or discontinuous) and one of what Dawkin's called 'Constant Speedism'.There are undoubtedly many who believe that populations undergo gradual changes in both their genetics and morphologies which may lead to speciation amongst other things, it is highly unlikely that there are any 'Constant Speedism' adherents on the board.TTFN,WK

Without DNA from fossilised coelacanths there is absolutely no reason to believe this is true. The fact that the extant living coelacanth is morphologically distinct from fossil coelacanths would suggest that this would not be true if we did find fossilised DNA. Indeed the different populations of modern coleacanth having a number of genetic changess between the populations givng the lie to the idea that no change has occurred (Holder et al, 1999).TTFN,WK

If you claim to have any familiarity with science then a reference to peer reviewed material in a scientific journal is always going to trump a link to a site that any monkey with a computer could produce. If you don't recognise that then you haven't the first clue what actually constitutes scientific evidence. Use a little education, it goes much further than common sense.TTFN,WK