DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Cyberman]

<Yawn>...

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Raup on the importance of fossils to Darwin's theory

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Evolutionist Steven Stanley on no gradual transitions in the fossil record

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

Eldredge on the pattern in the fossil record

There's just no challenge anymore...

(EDit: for some reason the first two links seem determined to point to the top of the page rather than the appropriate subsection, despite having different urls. I have no idea why, other than the internet trying to make me look like an idiot again.)