In a comment to a prior post, “Roy” wrote:
Mr Arrington,
You wrote that:
Darwin thought after further exploration the fossil record would ultimately show the “finely graduated organic chain” his theory predicted.
This is false.
In the text that follows the section you keep quoting, Darwin went on to explain why geology doesn’t
reveal finely graduated chains. He discussed erosion, dissolution of skeletal remains, conditions required for fossil accumulation and the rarity of preservation. And at the end of that discussion, he wrote this:If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life.
Darwin did not think further exploration of the fossil record would uncover “finely graduated organic chain[s]”. He wrote that it wouldn’t.
I do not think you have deliberately misrepresented Darwin’s ideas. I think it is more likely that you either didn’t comprehend, or didn’t read, the rest of that chapter. But the fact remains that you have used Darwin’s words in support of a position diametrically opposed to the position he actually held.
Roy
Dear Roy,
Sadly, it is you, sir, who did not comprehend the rest of that chapter or Origin. You quote Darwin:
we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms
and conclude:
Darwin did not think further exploration of the fossil record would uncover “finely graduated organic chain[s]”. He wrote that it wouldn’t.
In summary, you extrapolate from a comment Darwin made about “our geological formations” to his view on the fossil record generally. This is an error.
By “our geological formations” Darwin did not mean the geological formations of the whole world. He meant the formations (mainly in Europe) that had already been explored extensively. He makes this clear later when he compares “our geological formations” with the rest of the world:
We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined;
Darwin was, of course, the first Darwinist. And it is certainly true that he tried to explain away the fossil record in the geological formations that had already been explored extensively in his day (which he called “our geological formations”). This is the same tactic present day Darwinists use to explain away the fossil record as a whole now that 154 years of feverish searching have proven fruitless. I do not deny that.
But Darwin had a luxury that today’s paleontologists do not have – optimism about the product of future explorations of unexplored regions of the world. He firmly believed that further exploration of the record would vindicate his theory as the following passages (in addition to the one already quoted) indicate:
That our palaeontological collections are very imperfect, is admitted by every one. The remark of that admirable palaeontologist, the late Edward Forbes, should not be forgotten, namely, that numbers of our fossil species are known and named from single and often broken specimens, or from a few specimens collected on some one spot. Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove.
From these and similar considerations, but chiefly from our ignorance of the geology of other countries beyond the confines of Europe and the United States; and from the revolution in our palaeontological ideas on many points, which the discoveries of even the last dozen years have effected, it seems to me to be about as rash in us to dogmatize on the succession of organic beings throughout the world, as it would be for a naturalist to land for five minutes on some one barren point in Australia, and then to discuss the number and range of its productions.
We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy.
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis . . .
of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries
In summary, Darwin clearly expected that his theory would be vindicated (especially with respect to the Cambrian explosion, about which he admitted he was at an utter loss) as the record was explored further. He was wrong, and that was my point.
Finally, I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert about Darwin’s views. But I think we can both confidentially accept the authority of world-famous Darwinists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, who, as it happens, agree with me and not you. Testifying against interest they write:
Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong
Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46