No it doesn't show that creatures "jump" from one form to another. It show that we have an incomplete fossil record. A "rapid" change would sill involve many thousands of generations even though this would be a blink of an eye in geological scales.
By your own admission, what we have is a fossil record in which there is nothing but gaps or missing links ("an incomplete fossil record" as you put it). The result? We end up with creatures jumping from Creature A to Creature D with nothing in between (Creature B and Creature C). There are no transitional fossils to show how Creature A ended up as Creature D.
Gould and Eldridge tried to talk their way around the fossils evidence by dreaming up Punctuated Equilibrium, which says there is no need for transitional fossils. [FONT="]Everybody reading this thread knows that if everything alive today were the result of evolution, the fossil evidence would be inundated with examples of animals changing to other species. Instead, as another pro-evolution paleontologist admitted: [/FONT][FONT="]
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)[/FONT]
So if, as you claim, a "rapid change would sill involve many thousands of generations," how is it that there is not so much as a single transitional fossil from among the "many thousands of generations" that shows the creatures evolving into something else?
Inquiring minds want to know.
[/FONT]"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)