"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)"
The idea that this comment gives ammunition to the creationist view doesn't hold water in my opinion. This quote is a perfect example of the willingness in science to acknowledge gaps in understanding, and to admit that they give rise to concern. Darwin did NOT say "...perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory
in favour of a theory involving a creator/designer".
Had Darwin been aware of the modern day state of geology, he would undoubtedly have addressed this issue with a lesser degree of concern. The existence of enormous gaps in the fossil record are to be expected given our present understanding of the processes involved.
To quote a small portion of Bill Bryson's
A Short History of Nearly Everything":
It isn't easy to become a fossil. The fate of nearly all living organisms - over 99.9 per cent of them - is to compost down to nothingness.
...In order to become a fossil, several things must happen. First, you must die in the right place. Only about 15 per cent of rocks can preserve fossils, so it's no good keeling over on a future site of granite. In practical terms the deceased must become buried in sediment where it can leave an impression, like a leaf in wet mud, or decompose without exposure to oxygen, permitting the molecules in its bones and hard parts (and very occasionally softer parts) to be replaced by dissolved minerals, creating a petrified copy of the original. Then, as the sediments in which the fossil lies are carelessly pressed and folded and pushed about by Earth's processes, the fossil must somehow maintain an identifiable shape. Finally, but above all, after tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of years hidden away, it must be found and recognized as something worth keeping.
... Moreover, the record we do have is hopelessly skewed. Most land animals, of course, don't die in sediments. They drop in the open and are eaten or left to rot or weather down to nothing. The fossil record, consequently, is almost absurdly biased in favour of marine creatures. About 95 per cent of all the fossils we possess are of animals that once lived under water, mostly in shallow seas.
Despite these problems, we are slowly finding transitional fossils. Here's a pretty good partial list of those found so far:
Page Not Found - HolySmoke!
As further support for the notion that Darwin's concerns regarding the fossil record would later prove to be unwarranted, here's an excerpt from the above-linked website:
I have a few comments about "transitional fossils" in general. When The Origin Of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. At that time, the complaint about the lack of transitional fossils bridging the major vertebrate taxa was perfectly reasonable. Opponents of Darwin's theory of common descent (the theory that evolution has occurred; not to be confused with the separate theory that evolution occurs specifically by natural selection) were justifiably skeptical of such ideas as birds being related to reptiles. The discovery of Archeopteryx only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species was seen a stunning triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Archeopteryx has been called the single most important natural history specimen ever found, "comparable to the Rosetta Stone" (Alan Feduccia, in "The Age Of Birds"). O.C. Marsh's groundbreaking study of the evolution of horses was another dramatic example of transitional fossils, this time demonstrating a whole sequence of transitions within a single family. Within a few decades after the Origin, these and other fossils, along with many other sources of evidence (such as developmental biology and biogeography) had convinced the majority of educated people that evolution had occured, and that organisms are related to each other by common descent.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
