Changes

== Claims of transitional forms ==

== Claims of transitional forms ==

 

In ''The Origin of Species'' [[Charles Darwin]] wrote that the fossil record (as it was known then) was lacking in transitional forms.<ref name="chain">"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record".  Darwin, Charles, ''The Origin of Species'', chapter X.</ref>

In ''The Origin of Species'' [[Charles Darwin]] wrote that the fossil record (as it was known then) was lacking in transitional forms.<ref>"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record".  Darwin, Charles, ''The Origin of Species'', chapter X.</ref>

He predicted, however, that transitional forms would be found.

He predicted, however, that transitional forms would be found.

Nevertheless, 120 years later, David Raup said that the situation had not improved.<ref>"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.", Raup, David, "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology", ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50(1), January 1979, p.25.</ref>

Nevertheless, 120 years later, David Raup said that the situation had not improved.<ref>"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.", Raup, David, "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology", ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50(1), January 1979, p.25.</ref>