[drpix]

"Haunts?"

From article: "An expert blames the lack of fossil evidence on the fact that these slippery sausage-like fish don’t have hard parts, like bones and hard teeth. He says, “it’s really difficult for them to get preserved into the fossil record.”"

The hagfish poses very little challenge to Darwin/Evolution compared to the gaps in the fossil records for many creatures that could/should have left transitional fossil records.

[BroJoeK]

drpix: "The hagfish poses very little challenge to Darwin/Evolution compared to the gaps in the fossil records for many creatures that could/should have left transitional fossil records."

Sorry, but no species "should have" left fossils, transitional or otherwise.
All fossils require very unusual conditions and estimates are that fewer than 1% of species left any fossils.
Those fossils we do have are heavily weighted towards marine species with shell bodies.

All told, billions of individual fossils have been collected world-wide representing circa 250,000 species alive over the past ~500 million years.
Do the math -- that's about one fossil species of some type preserved somewhere in the world every 2,000 years, that's been found.
So, 250,000 sounds like a lot of species, and it is, but for every species found so far, somewhere between a hundred and a thousand species either left no fossils or they haven't been found, yet.

As for "transitional" species, this site lists not species, but genera, a total of 178 in 25 categories, including insects & mammals.

Of course people who deny evolution also deny, by definition, "transitional fossils".
But the fossil records show some remarkable sequences whose only natural explanation is: transitional forms.