The lack of transitionals that Gould was talking about was small-scale, ie between what would be considered very similar species, neighbours on the tree of life.
And this is prcisely what we should see in the fossil record in abundance. Darwin was certain that future fossil finds would support his theory. They didn't. So now neo-Darwinists harp on about fossils being "extremely rare", and "difficult to form".
What a load of parrot droppings. Take a look around. Rivers, lakes, seas and oceans everywhere. Daily tides. Frequent droughts and floods. Fossils are being formed by the ton as we speak, all over the world. And this process has been going on for (supposedly) millions of years. If the theory of evolution was true, we would be up to our necks in transitional fossils, each tiny darwinian step lovingly catalogued in the strata.
The lack of transitional fossils can only -only- be explained by a lack of transitional species.
Creationists these days accept that this kind of evolution occurs
Only if it's sideways or downwards in genetic complexity. Stochastic processes can't create new genes without overcoming prohibitive odds.
in fact they are vastly over-optimistic about what it can achieve in 6000 years.
Not really. The British mosquito has speciated in just 100 years.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
No they are not. They are rare, often fragmentary and always hotly disputed (and not just by Creationists, I should add).
There is no justification for using Gould to criticise macroevolution.
Try telling that to Dickie Dawkins.
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
™ Version 4.2
