Which view makes sense of the fossil record ?

This appears to translate as "It's unfair of you to invite me to prove that you're wrong when you know perfectly well that all the evidence proves you right." Yes, so it does. But if we were wrong, it needn't.Consider the following dialog:A: John is dead.
B: No he isn't.
A: Prove me wrong, then. Show that his heart is beating.
B: This is a rigged game, we've already taken his pulse and know that he doesn't have one. You already know that I don't have the ability.But taking John's pulse is a perfectly fair test of whether he's alive or dead. The fact that B won't find a pulse --- and knows that he won't find a pulse --- is not a sign that it's an unfair test, it's a sign that A is right and B is wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, that was incoherent nonsense. You think if the fossils were reversed. Then the species living now --- humans and wombats and giraffes and so forth --- would appear in the oldest rocks, and not in more recent rocks, which would show only extinct species of vertebrates etc. How would scientists explain that? It cannot be that all modern mammals went extinct before the rise of (e.g.) the dinosaurs, because they are manifestly not extinct.What we see in the fossil record is that in more recent strata modern groups are better represented, consistent with the idea that these strata represent a history, and that this history includes new groups arising. The following observations would not be consistent with this idea:* The reverse being the case, with modern groups being best represented at the bottom of the column.* Species being evenly distributed through the column, so that modern critters are present in the oldest rocks.* Species being arranged in order of size, with the largest at the top and the smallest at the bottom, or vice versa.* Species being arranged according to how many legs they have, with fish and snakes and worms at the bottom, then all the humans and birds, then all the quadrupeds, then all the insects, then the crabs and spiders, then the lobsters, and the millipedes at the top ...* Etc, etc.

Your dumb Gish Gallop is as off-topic as it is stupid, i.e. very. If there's any point in it you feel confident enough to argue for, you could start a new thread. Otherwise, you should stick to denying obvious facts about the fossil record, which is also stupid but is at least relevant to the O.P.