You might find it edifying to actually read Darwin's writings, and to educate yourself as well on the rhetorical style he employed.
mmm yes, the 'rhetorical style' that says "There should be mountains of evidence' (more or less) and then "We wouldn't recognize the evidence even if we had it unless there was a near perfect chain of tansitions' (more or less)
Nothing 'rhetorical' about stating a fact and then dismissing it by stating we couldn't recognize the evidence even if we had it unless...
Of course we'd recognize steps or transitions even without a 'near perfect chain'- And it is my beleif that Darwin knew this unless he simply didn't have access to too many fossils which clearly showed lines of species. But I'm sorry- in one case he admits there should be a lot of transitions, then explains the fact that the fossil records lack transitions which should be present and identifiable away by stating we 'wouldn't regonize them unless..."? That's either blatant denial, or a lack of understanding.