Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.
My two cents
None of the believers in molecules-to-man evolution told me this; instead I was led to believe that the fossil record was more comprehensive.
There’s more to evolutionist knowledge than the fossil record, with one example being observation in laboratories. I’m told that some type of evolution has been observed for certain bacteria, and this lends at least some weight to the concept of evolution being feasible for all species—including the ones that haven’t been discovered yet (there were nearly 20,000 new species discovered in 2011). To top that off, I’ve read that 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct (and I suppose many of them are inaccessible for detailed study). Despite this, all of them can be accounted for by evolution…
This sounds like partial observation, plus inference, multiplied by extrapolation— and equalling a sizeable incompleteness.
Was it R.J. Rushdoony or Duane Gish (or maybe both) who said they didn’t have enough faith to believe in evolution? I used to think that was just a rhetorical flourish—but now I can see it’s more than that.
Wikimedia Foundation. (2013). Fossil. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil. Last accessed 19th Jun 2013.