Yeah, but as you said earlier, they would have to re-write the textbooks! Once you start, you have to keep it going, or the entire thing collapses and what will the repercussions be? Your quote was apt, it's a question of pride too and what happened then, is the same thing happening now. History repeating itself I'd say.

Anything extinct gets a label from the evolutionary perspective. No fossil is safe! It's an earlier transitional form/ancestor. They get to speak for it. But what happens when they discover the "so-called" fossil still happens to be alive and well somewhere in the world and has been discovered? It can be embarrassing, considering the fossil is labelled to be millions of years old.....yet it hasn't changed! and as for an earlier transitional form/ancestor? That gets blown out of the water as well because it's still alive and producing after it's own kind, right along with the rest.

E.g.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/tgsmqzsqob.jpg">

New DNA analysis confirms that the Laotian rock rat (above) is a "living fossil" that belongs to a family of rodents thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070424-fossil-rodent.html

Consider the Coelacanth fish!

From 1839 - 1938, evolutionists alledged this fish was a "missing link" in the evolution of fish to amphibians. Supposedly 400 millions years old. Evolutionists believed that it had become extinct 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this. In 1938, however, a living coelacanth was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar, and since that time more than 200 other specimens have been sighted or caught.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jpmurrspvk.jpg">
A 1998 find of "a living fossil" off Sulawesi, Indonesia (the Coelacanth pictured above).
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/COELAC.htm
Because coelacanths have lobed fins, evolutionists thought them to be ancestors of the first amphibians (which is one such example of how evolutionists misinterpret the fossil record to promote their idea). Other creatures, such as the nautilus, brachiopod, horseshoe crab and even the ubiquitous cockroach, are virtually unchanged from fossils paleontologists date to hundreds of millions of years ago.

Another example is here in New Zealand (where I live), where have a lizard-like creature called a "tuatara". Another "living fossil"....The Encyclopaedia Britannica adds that the tuatara is "a reptile that has shown little morphological evolution for nearly 200,000,000 years since the early Mesozoic" ("Evolution").
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kpzzsszkmf.jpg">

Antelope fossil - "apparently 83 million years old" (according to evolution).
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/yyoazxxovj.jpg">
If evolutionist claims were true, then there should once have been a very odd creature bearing features of both the antelope and some other life form. These animals, of which there is no trace in the fossil record, should immediately be identifiable, due to their sharing characteristics belonging to two different species, and should also exhibit an example of the supposed forebear-descendent relationship claimed by evolutionists. Yet not one single such intermediate form has ever been exhibited in evolutionist publications, which are filled with countless other myths and fictitious scenarios. That is because no such fossil exists. And that is in turn because no such life form ever existed at any time. Like the 83-million-year-old antelope in the picture, all living things have come down to the present day in exactly the same form in which they were first created. Natural history refutes evolutionist claims.
http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=2897


Evolution theory predicts a fossil record that would contain:
Simple life forms gradually appearing with similar predecessors.
Simple life forms gradually changing over time into more-complex forms.
Countless transitional links between kinds of creatures.
Beginnings of and partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs.

The biblical account of creation predicts a fossil record that would contain:
Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.
Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds" (Genesis 6:20), but with limited variety within those kinds.
No transitional links between kinds of creatures.
No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

After years of study and research, what does the fossil record show?
Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.
Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds,"
variety within each species.
No transitional links between kinds of creatures.
No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/forecord.html

And what do we find? Fossils in their complete state, and showing little to no change over the millions of years that they have been apparently "evolving".