Darwin's Biggest Problem

Darwin's naturalistic hypothesis will always fail because it's built on the wrong foundation.

[WadeWeigle]

Had Darwin the scientific knowledge we have today, he wouldn’t have put his hypothesis out there.

[WilliamCooper-lf]

Darwin's paradox is censored from debate at all levels and Darwin himself would be banned from discussing his own theory. Notice as well, that Darwin speaks about his theory as a theory and not a scientific fact.

[MrDanAng]

First of all, if you keep on reading from this Darwin quote, he explain why we shouldn't expect a perfect geological record. It's a fairly basic explanation and it lack a lot of detail, but it still stand fairly well.

Second, it's a matter of degree in saying it's been overcome or not.
We haven't found and most likely will never find all the transitional fossils, but we have found a lot of predicted transitions.
The first Archeoptheryx was found within Darwins own lifetime, we found great amounts of transitional fossils on several lineages, such as horses, whales and even the human line just to mention a few.
There is still gaps, but predictions based on the evolutionary theory have been met time and time and time again, just within the fossil record and corroborated by other scientific disciplines.
There is no explanation for these in between/transitional species in a specially created "kinds" theory.
Except, of course, deliberate deception from the creator, making it look like evolution occured for whatever reason.

[iveseen]

Minerals in some strata can dissolve the bone and some bone is absorbed by the minerals in others retaining it as a fossil.

[hansdemos]

Read the next line. Please.
"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
If you don't think that all, or nearly all, or most, or even a lot of dead things have been preserved; if you think that fossilization is rare, then you must agree with Darwin and disagree with Mr. Smith here.

[refusebdcvd]

It's time we replace the mythology of natural selection with the observable truth of divine selection.

[baraskparas]

Since Darwin's era a lot more fossils have been unearthed demonstrating examples of these missing links. Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, Picaia, Tiktaalyk etc etc. Out of date nonsense.

[timothykeith]

Stephen J Gould also said transitional fossils are lacking

[MrReasonabubble]

Imagine displaying intellectual honesty and integrity by citing the potential challenges to one's beliefs.

Now imagine someone else coming along a century-and-a-half later, using that against you, and proclaiming his contrary beliefs true because he doesn't have the courage to do the same thing.

[concretesandals]

Calvin, isn't there a Commandment against lying?

[HangrySaturn]

Can we all agree this is outdated information?

[ConservativeMirror]

Yeah, because not every organism gets fossilized. But all you need is to show that each organism you do find has a possible ancestor in the fossil record from which it evolved.

[dukekelloway]

Really? Ever been to a museum? Most major museums are full of what you seek. Every day it gets more complete and while we may never see absolute lineage we've seen enough for most people to be swayed . DNA is filling in the blanks.

[davejoseph]

Fossils form only rarely, when conditions are perfect, therefore we are going to find fossils of only the most super-abundant species that have lived.

[Valor.]

Thanks for sharing 👍. Love the information you bring us.

[hammalammadingdong]

Worst way to try to refute evolution...??
"Darwin once

That was the 1860's, amigo. This is the 21stcentury.
Try to keep up.

[jaybailleaux]

There are intermediate links in the fossil record but not gradual. The claim is evolution happens in spurts, but geological speaking, spurts are a long time. Something is going on with the evolution of life, but theories of evolution don't give us firm bulletproof answers. Circumstantial at best. Darwin theories do an excellent job explaining the extinction of life.