Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating.
These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views.
In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.This statement is possibly surprising in view of the fact that almost any modern writer can produce a geologic timetable [based on evolutionary theory applied to "index fossils") that gives precise datings and lengths of the eras and systems and even of some of the smaller subdivisions . These figures have been obtained in various remarkable ways. ]"Ultimately, however, they are tied to three [radioactive] dates based on atomic disintegration: (1) 60 million years, the age of the pitchblende at Central City, Colorado; (2) 220 million years, the age of the pitchblende at St.Joachimstal, Bohemia; and (3) 440 million years, the age of the uranium-bearing shale at Gullhogen, Sweden.Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them: Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution.
New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’.