Replies

...Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. [Ibid., p. 140, 141, 227]

Is that a question about evolution, or a question about geology? If we're accepting that not finding all of the transitionals in the fossil record means they never existed, does only being able to find one of a particulary species mean that's all there ever was?

There's an implicit assertion in his arguments that there must be fossilized remains of every species there ever was. Geological theory does not support that as being a reasonable assumption.

Is that a question about evolution, or a question about geology?

Better to ask Darwin about that: That was a direct quote from him.

As for my opinion, I'm glad to take Darwin at his word in this matter.