On point of order, the reason we were discussing the molecular data on the prior thread is that was what the thread was about, and specifically it was posited it supported front loading. There was no mistatement to suggest evos came to believe in Darwinism based on molecular data, as your OP suggests.
On the question of the fossil record, you claim the TOE is supported by the Fossil Record. Ok, as a challenge, please show a sequence of, say, 10 speciation events or more leading to the origin of higher taxa in the fossil record. All I am asking is that the process Darwinists claim occured be shown in the fossil record, actual evidence, not inferred evidence.
Assuming that cannot be done, can you show maybe 4-5 in sequence?
How about any sequences, and by sequences, I don't mean you arranging fossils with 99% of the sequences left out and claiming you have shown the steps.
What is your explanation for the steps in Darwinism, which is gradualistic even if a punctuated equilibrium model, not being seen in the fossil record?
Assuming you provide an explanation, please cite comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies backing up your explanation or admit they've never been done. Specifically, if your claim is fossil rarity, I would expect at a minimum for some studies quantifying that. For example, with whales and their supposed, envisioned evolution, I would expect there to be numbers given for estimates of actual whale fossils, estimates of how many "forms" probably more at the genera level it would take to evolve from, say, A to B, from land animals to whales or some other snapshot of evolution covering a period of time with creatures known to fossilize.
There should be specific predictions and estimates then on what we should expect to see. Let's suppose for example, we look at horse fossils. I think there are something like 28 horse species that have left fossils. Assuming some have not left fossils, there should be more than 28 species, maybe much, much more, to evolve a horse species into the other 28 horse species. In other words, you could assign a metric per so much evolution defined as morphological changes, it would take a range of so much new forms, species or genera.
What is the likelihood those forms will be represented?
Let's say it would take, for example, an estimated 5000 forms to evolve a land mammal to a whale and that includes branches that died out, and we have, say, 8 potential forms in the fossil record......That indicates a very low likelihood of fossilization.
Problem is we have thousands of some of those forms. That doesn't fit with Darwinism because how can you claim fossil rarity and yet thousands of fossils are found of some species, but let's say evos say, fossil rarity does make sense.
Prove it. Show where this basic claim has been substantiated with actual peer-reviewed studies.
Also, you claimed the belief in a universal common ancestor stems from the fossil record. Please substantiate that.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2