Lol he says:
“It is not intelligent design theorists who are the science deniers, but rather all those stubborn Darwinists. The latter still close their eyes to the ever-increasing number of anomalies that their pet theory fails to explain.”
Then a few sentences later he completely contradicts himself:
“Everything that is really interesting in the history of life and that should be explained by Darwin’s theory, this very theory actually fails to explain, by the admission of modern evolutionary biologists themselves.”
It’s all down to a confusion of time scales and spatial scales too. Selection coefficients too small to measure in the wild or in a laboratory population can produce change many times faster than could be observed in a grainy fossil record. And if times of major change are episodic and brief (in geological terms), we should rarely see them happening, even if we have many samples of locally perfect records over some thousands of years. The fossil record reflects poor geographic and temporal sampling, and not just due to lack of effort. Like Darwin says, many pages of the book are missing, and many are found only in a few places, while much more happens off the page.
@John_Harshman how would you define the terms anagenesis and cladogenesis? I’m seeing a lot of varying definitions and even a paper calling for an end of the terms. So I’m curious how you would define them and their processes
Yes, it does. Having a specimen from every generation of every lineage is not necessary to establish the evolutionary branching history of life. The fossil samples we do have provide enough information, especially when combined with our knowledge of genetic phylogenies.