Perhaps you should question these so-called facts once in a while. Even Gould had to admit that the fossil record shows no trend toward increased complexity. "Most structural complexity entered in a grand burst at the Cambrian explosion, and the history of Phanerozoic life since then has largely been a tale of endless variation upon a set of basic body plans...So was'nt Darwin's theory based upon a clear progression from simple to complex? Try and find your evidence that the Cambrian explosion was predicted by Darwin....it remains one of the evolutionists biggest problems ...alas until we're now able to study biochemistry and see so much disturbing complexity. LOL
Try and find your evidence that quantum mechanics was predicted by Newton. Science doesn't work like that -- it doesn't all come at once from a stone tablet or a burning bush. Science strives to find ways to understand the available evidence, and as new evidence comes to light, the explanations change to fit the new discoveries.
That's why "Darwminism" is such a fatuous slur; Darwin had an insight, but no one, least of all Darwin, believed that it would be the last insight. Darwin was not the end of evolutionary biology any more than Pasteur was the end of medicine.
That wasn't what I said, and isn't true.
What I was alluding to was that since the existence of Precambrian life is a necessary part of the theory, and it was unknown in Darwin's time, he thought that the "Cambrian explosion" was potentially a problem:
Of his newly minted theory, Darwin wrote:Source.There is another . . . difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known [Cambrian-age] fossiliferous rocks . . . If the theory [of evolution] be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed . . . and that during these vast periods, the world swarmed with living creatures . . . . [However], to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.
[Cambrian explosion] remains one of the evolutionists biggest problems ...
How so, now that Ediacarian and Vendian multicellulars are known, and the prokaryote record goes back 3.8 or so billion years? The caricature of all the phyla appearing "fully formed" in a "short" period of time in the Cambrian has been replaced by research into the early evolution and differentiation of the phyla. Here's an interesting essay on the subject by Glenn Morton, a former young-Earth creationist whose work in oil prospecting, combined with his honesty, straightened him out.