Does geological evidence support Darwin's theory?

Answer 1

In general, yes. The basic process of "evolution", in which each generation of creatures either survive or do not, in response to environmental factors, is pretty much undisputed. The creatures that survive more often are likely to prosper and thrive; the ones that survive LESS often (no process is absolute) will gradually become extinct.

So in the geological record, we see evidence of animals and plants that are similar to the ones we know today, some that are somewhat different, and many that are WILDLY different than any we know of today. So in my front yard, I have a ginko tree which is apparently no different from the ones that apatosaurus might have eaten 100 million years ago, while there have been no dinosaurs around for about 65 million years. The shellfish in the market of Catania, Sicily, are essentially the same as the fossil shellfish that have been excavated from the million-year-old lava flows around Mt. Etna.

We cannot know for certain what combinations of factors might have encouraged some species to thrive while others became extinct, but the basic process of evolutionary change is essentially undisputed.

Certainly, Darwin's theories were not 100% accurate - but scientific theories never are. They are always revised as we learn new facts and are able to better interpret old facts into a coherent whole.

Answer 2

Carbon dating actually contributes very little to the available evidence for evolutionary theory. C14 dating can be used to measure ages between some 60.000 and 500 years, which is no more than a geological eye-blink. Most of the evidence for evolutionary theory comes from comparative genomics, and from palaeontology in combination with various other forms of radiometric dating.