The fossil record shows evidence of only micro-evolution (variations of the same species), but it does not show either branches of at least one species or the high count of transitional fossils for even one species. If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over [b]at least a million[/b] (which there isn't) transitional fossil records [b]per species[/b]? Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few and state, "These few (not many) transitional fossils tell us that [insert name of species] have evolved on planet Earth for over millions of millennia." Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and complexity, yet most evolutionists state, "We have a large collection of fossils in our fossil record," yet it possesses not even the many expected forms of transitional fossils for even one species to substantiate the claim of evolution.