Fossil Record
Fossils against evolution
Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.

Paleontology is the study of the life on earth of the unobservable past. Evolutionists believe that comparative studies are good evidence for evolution. But comparative studies are based on metaphysics, not on science. According to evolutionists fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time, but that geologic time is completely based on the unprovable philosophy uniformitarianism and its explanation is based on the preconceived evolutionary worldview. The fossil record is the only thing evolutionists have for supposedly showing macroevolution in the past. It turns out to be a good way for showing the problems with evolution theory...
Phyletic gradualism
According to Darwin...

Why should not Nature have taken a leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps.

Darwin needed incredible amounts of time to seemingly make his belief in slow and gradual macroevolution, which he called phyletic gradualism, less incredible. His fellow naturalists invented the theory which gave Darwin the time they thought was needed. The unobservable past in evolution theory is completely based on the unprovable philosophy uniformitarianism which in turn is based on the unprovable philosophy naturalism. Their huge circular theory did not help much because the fossil record does not show any macroevolution as Darwin himself also noted...

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? ... why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Those transitional fossils are still missing from the fossil record today...
Transitional fossils?
What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.*

What scientists find in the fossil record are unique and completely functional life forms. There are no transitional fossils. Nobody ever found a life form with half an arm or half a leg or half any organ not already present on its ancestor. Such life forms would never survive in the first place. See also for example Tiktaalik and Ida. These typical examples are laughable at best. Therefore evolutionists stretch the boundaries of metaphysics in order to seemingly fit the fossil record into their belief system...
There is a problem looking for this missing link because you must already be committed to the idea that a missing link exists. This is an important observation because all analysis of early hominids are based on certain assumptions. The search assumes the truth of evolution, and it assumes, because of evolution, that if there are morphological similarities that these similarities imply a biogenetic relationship and ancestry. That is why the article says that there are some similarities here in facial features, jaws, ears, canine teeth with apes; but there are characteristics that look like men - they walked upright, for example. Therefore this is seen to be a link in the evolutionary chain between the two particular kinds of creatures that this fossil seems to be similar to. There is the conclusion that this must be a link between the two because of the presumption of evolution when the similarities to apes and humans to a certain degree are observed. Virtually all of these kinds of assessments start with the belief that evolution is true.*

The supposed timeline of human evolution is based on very few fragments of incomplete skeletons which are then interpreted in line with the evolutionary worldview. Transitional fossils involve metaphysics, circular reasoning and paradigm paralysis. Fanatics even forged evidence with for example the Piltdown Man fraud*. The Neanderthal Man is another good example of misrepresentation.
Completeness of the fossil record
The fossil record is very incomplete and will vary greatly for different groups of organisms. The record of most important evolutionary events was never in the fossil record. Many events that were recorded in fossils have since been lost. Many fossils remain as of yet undiscovered and uncatalogued by science.*

Evolutionists often blame the lack of transitional fossils on the difficulty of fossilization and the incompleteness of the fossil record. But fossilized worms like Polychaetes and even bacteria like stromatolite have been found in all strata, including the Cambrian strata. First of all these arguments show that they admit that there are no transitional fossils. Second it shows that, despite the fact that extensive research has been done since Darwin's time and no uncontroversial transitional fossils are found, that most evolutionists will never question their own belief. They rather explain away the dilemmas. The more time passes the more ridiculous their viewpoint becomes.

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

The absence of transitional fossils is evidence against evolution theory.
The adequacy of the fossil record is hard to assess, as the various contributions in this book indicate. In a strict sense, it will never be possible to assess the adequacy of any segment of the fossil record, since the true picture will be forever unknown. Perhaps there have been whole phyla, or even kingdoms, of extraordinary organisms that lived at different times in the past, but which have left no fossil indications. One could imagine whole tribes of giant purple worms with bodies 100 metres long, squirming around on Carboniferous forest floors, or an entirely unknown kingdom of photosynthesising organisms that lived in Cambrian seas and moved by means of floppy wheels made from protoplasm. Such organisms are not impossible, but they are unlikely. The unlikelihood increases day-by-day as ever more palaeontological effort fails to turn up any hint of such unknown major groups of macroscopic organisms.

Since Darwin's time the earth's layers have been thoroughly examined and searched for fossils by fanatic evolutionists eager to find their desired "missing link". The incompleteness of the fossil record is an argument that is getting weaker with time. The fact that transitional forms are missing has made fanatic evolutionists invent other contradictory evolutionary theories in an attempt to seemingly talk their way out of this reality. It is called punctuated equilibrium...
Punctuated equilibrium
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.

Stephen Jay Gould said that Charles Darwin viewed the fossil record more as an embarrassment than as an aid to his theory. It is striking that today we still have no uncontroversial examples of clear transitions from any unique life form into any other. So the embarrassment only got worse. Therefore evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge invented punctuated equilibrium in opposition to Darwin's slow and gradual evolution. It hypothesizes that evolution took place rapidly. So rapidly that we cannot see it. This first of all confirms that Darwinian gradual evolution is not supported by the facts from the fossil record. And secondly, that evolutionists are lost in explaining the fossil record.

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory which is even less observable and less scientific than the previous one. So after they finally discovered that gradual macroevolution is not observable in the fossil record they simply invented a contrary and even less falsifiable theory which is supposed to magically pop new life forms into existence after long periods of no change. Fantastic! Welcome to the unscientific and wonderful world of evolution where absolutely anything is possible. Science fiction.
Cambrian explosion
This diagram illustrates the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. The vertical axis represents time, and the horizontal axis represents "morphology" (body structure of an organism). Darwin's theory (a) predicted that fossil transitions between different body types would be found. When transitions were not found, evolutionists proposed hypothetical model (b), punctuated equilibrium, where the transitional forms were not fossilized. Model (C) represents the actual fossil record with regards to the origin of the major types (phyla) of animals. Many types of organisms suddenly appear in the "Cambrian" period. This "Cambrian Explosions", combined with the Avalon Explosion and the sudden appearance of Angiosperms (Frohlich and Chase, 2007) provide good examples of the many explosions challenging those seeking evidence for evolution in the fossil record.*

On top of all the problems with the fossil record for evolution theory, all phyla appeared suddenly with the Cambrian explosion after which no new phyla emerged. Since the Cambrian explosion microevolution caused variety within those phyla or kinds. Catastrophic extinction events show that many kinds died out with time.
Insect fossils
Insects are the most diverse lineage of all life in numbers of species, and ecologically they dominate terrestrial ecosystems. However, how and when this immense radiation of animals originated is unclear. ... Rhyniognatha has derived characters shared with winged insects, suggesting that the origin of wings may have been earlier than previously believed.

Rapidly reproducing insects are a good way for showing that macroevolution never took place. Scientists found fossil ants of 92 million years old, fossil dragonflies of 155 million years old, butterfly fossils of 50 million years old, etcetera. And they look exactly the same as those in existence today, perhaps different in size due to different environmental conditions. Starfish haven't changed one bit for at least 435 million years. Etcetera. The fact that so many species, even insects, simply remained the same kind of life form for so many millions of years shows that they did not undergo any macroevolution.
Lazarus taxa
A Lazarus taxon is a taxon that disappears from one or more periods of the fossil record, only to appear again later.

Lazarus taxa show that these species did not undergo any macroevolution, but rather remained the same always, physically and functionally.
Living fossils
Living fossil is an informal term for any living species of organism which appears to be the same as a species otherwise only known from fossils and which has no close living relatives. These species have all survived major extinction events, and generally retain low taxonomic diversities.

Living fossils show that these species did not undergo any macroevolution.
Evolution delusion
Charles Darwin:
I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another, but that I believe that this view in the main is correct, because so many phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained.*

The explanation of the fossil record by the self-proclaimed monkey descendants is based on their unprovable philosophies naturalism, uniformitarianism and metaphysics. True and hardcore science contradicts it. The fact that evolutionists rather hold on to bad philosophy instead of hardcore science is best explained by phenomenas like paradigm paralysis and blind faith in the scientifically impossible. The only thing that evolved over time is evolution theory itself.