The above image comes from EvolutionEvidence.org, which has a whole page dedicated to intermediate fossils and the evidence they provide for biological evolution.
Genealogy is one of my hobbies. In one of my lines in my mom’s family, I can’t figure out who the parents of my one second-great-grandfather are. I have the census records in the US, but there’s almost a generation’s gap between them and the last census in a small village in the Ukraine. I have a candidate list of about 16 third cousins with the right last name and right age from this village who might be my second-great-grandfather’s father.
The family then converges on a common patriarch in that village. I can’t trace the ancestral line back to him, but I know who this seventh great-grandfather is.
The only way to satisfy the gaps problem would be to have a complete family tree of every organism and its ancestry organism by organism. One of the commonest misconceptions of evolution is that it is some sort of process that operates at the species level. That makes no sense. Species exist, not in the ontology of biology, but in the helpful categorizations in our minds. In the real world, it’s really no different from the study of genealogy, just at a greater scale.
This is as silly as saying, “Until you show me every single ancestor, I will not believe in genealogy.”
Ha – so you admit you can’t produce the evidence! Unless you show me every single genealogical ancestor, I will not believe in sexual reproduction
I think it goes more like this:
U E N E
Herbert Spencer’s essay, “The Development Hypothesis” points out that, even if the evidence for evolution is not enough to satisfy he creationist, not only is there is less evidence for creationism, but creationism does not even supply a “conceivable mode” of how the variety of life appeared.
Sorry for the mistake, that should be