Replies

But it's not sufficient. Fortunately, the similarity of morphology is shown to develop over time (sometimes in stunning detail) by the time-ordered sequence of the fossil beds, and that is sufficient to establish common descent as a historical fact, without presupposing any theoretical template.

First, it is a logical template, not a historical template. Secondarily, the assertion you make of the fossil beds serving as a time-ordered catalog of sequential morphology is simply false. Were it to have been true, evolutionists themselves would not have had to put forth hopeful monster theories to explain their contents. Furthermore, your interpretation of the fossil beds hinges on the assumption that geologically, gradualism trumps catastrophism.

But wait, there's an independent test: that entire structure is accurately mirrored by the analogous tree that can be constructed from gene sequences.

Again, the template. What really needs to happen if evolution is to take a rightful place at the table of empirical science is for endosymbiotic activity involving prokaryotes to be observed under the microscope or for phylization of some short-lived organism in a Mendalian experiment of epic proportions. This sort of data would actually serve as "proof" of evolution. However, it doesn't exist.

"Secondarily, the assertion you make of the fossil beds serving as a time-ordered catalog of sequential morphology is simply false.

In what way is it false? Surely you must have an equal or better explanation for the sorting we see in the fossil record.

" Were it to have been true, evolutionists themselves would not have had to put forth hopeful monster theories to explain their contents.

Hopeful monster? Which hopeful monster theory are you referring to? I hope you don't believe saltation events are necessary for evolution or that Punctuated Equilibrium requires that sort of rapid change.

" Furthermore, your interpretation of the fossil beds hinges on the assumption that geologically, gradualism trumps catastrophism.

Interpretation of the fossil record is based on gradualism punctuated with local catastrophes. The reason catastrophism is not seriously considered for all records is because of the evidence, *including the sorting of fossils*, found. A *single* catastrophic event would lead to completely different sorting orders. The sorting we do find heavily indicates gradual deposition interspersed with catastrophes of varying degree. A single catastrophe would also leave evidence of its passing in *many* other geological structures independent of the fossil record. This is simply not found, the evidences of catastrophic events are inconsistent both geographically and temporally. They simply did not occur simultaneously.

"What really needs to happen if evolution is to take a rightful place at the table of empirical science is for endosymbiotic activity involving prokaryotes to be observed under the microscope"

Why?

Let's try a little mental exercise.

Suppose that ~3.6 billion years ago, the Earth was populated by small Achaean prokaryotes who were quite happy and doing swimmingly in their environment. At that time there was a small band of aliens flying about the galaxy looking for trouble to stir up. They came upon Earth with its families of tiny archaea and being the artists they were, decided to expand the archaean horizon by introducing mitosomes to the archaeans thus producing diplomonads. Or perhaps they chose some other early eukaryote to produce, which one they chose is irrelevant. What is important is that they produced the eukaryote from which all Earthly eukaryotic life descended.

Those aliens promptly left, never to return. In fact no other alien species of any sort ever visited Earth again.

Now, how does this origin of eukaryotes change abiogenesis? How does it change common descent? How does it change speciation? How does it change hominid development?

How does this affect any of evolution, other than that one instance?