Howdy, Ned.
I interpreted P's statement as saying that Darwin said that we
should see more transitionals in the fossil record than we do or than we did in Darwin's time. If I misinterpreted him/her, I will accept his/her correction. Obviously, if evolution is true, lots and lots of transitional species should have existed in the past; however, it was known in Darwin's time that fossilization is a rare occurrence, and the geologic processes that destroy fossils are many, and so I remember (perhaps incorrectly) that Darwin felt that we may not necessarily be able to ever find very many fossils. It would be nice if they were there, but probably they are not (in Darwin's view).
That said, Darwin (or my caricature of him) is wrong. It turns out that there are lots of fossils after all, and that there are lots of transitional fossils. Darwin, I suspect, is leaping in joy in his agnostic heaven.
At any rate, we still have the topic of the thread; why are there no human fossils in lower strata? According to the "evolutionist" framework, that is easy; lower strata are older strata, and humans did not yet exist when they were formed. But according to the Genesis view point, humans and other animals were all contemporaneous (thank god for
Merriam Webster), and so there is no reason why dead humans shouldn't be found in strata that contain dead other animals.