The quote that you so aptly took out of context to further your agenda was specifically discussing the lack of transitional forms as would be expected from the old idea of gradualism in evolution; as you should know, Gould was one of the leading evolutionists bc he was one of the founders of the punctuated equilibria theory: that evolution largely moves foward in rapid bursts in small, isolated populations - as opposed to the old idea of slow, steady changes of entire populations w/ smooth gradual transitions from one form to another. THAT is the issue he was discussing in that qoute: that the fossil record points to evolution via punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradual evolutionary transitions, *not* that there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record.

Some more quotes from Gould that put this issue in the proper context, and render your argument null and void:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy."

"If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory."

- so as johnny_domino said, GTFOOHWTBS.

As for some of the other supposed "problems" for evolutionists you mentioned:

- conscience,will, emotion, etc., likely arose with the development of language - the ability to formulate & communicate abstract thoughts & ideas. Either way, it is not a "problem" for evolutionists as you put it, bc it is not needed for evidence of human evolution.

- as for woodpeckers, that is :

"The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the following information shows, however, the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection."

- an explanation for how the bombadier beetle mechanism could have evolved is also .

So again, like johnny_domino said, these "problems" that you mentioned aren't doing anything to disprove them scientifically. However, there are many problems for creationists that cannot be scientifically explained, such as all of the clearly reptilian characteristics of the 'bird' Archaeopteryx, as well as the existence of the feathered dinosaurs Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx. And as I posted before, there is the problem of the sequence of the horse fossils:

"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude