In rare moments of candor, even the evolutionists themselves admit this obvious fact:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)
The Myths of Human Evolution
Columbia University Press, p. 48
Ridiculous.
The number of phyla was greater in the Cambrian age, but the total number of species, over time, is much greater than during that period.
Two points:
1) No one ever said Darwin knew everything there is to know about biology himself.
2) Evolution explains what we see in biology far better than any theory in physics explains why an apple falls to the ground. There’s no doubt that species evolve over time, or how they do it. There is much doubt and controversy about how exactly gravity works over distance.
(I hate getting into these evolution discussions here in FR because this is the place for conservatives to come together and discuss politics. I did not join this website in 2001 in order to get into endless arguments about evolution. I feel uncomfortable doing this. But every once in a while I have to stick in my opinion on this subject.)
The only thing that Darwin predicted is that offspring vary in minor, almost undetectable ways, from their parents, and that, as a result of variation, some will be more successful than others at reproducing.
No biologist has ever declared that successful body types will change just for the sake of change. Alligators haven't changed much, and many insects have stable body types.
I find the idea of gradual change being rampant (i.e. unrestrained and violent) pretty funny. However, if he indeed predicted that (which I doubt), it only goes to show that he didn't fully understand his theory.