Ah, yes, the old evolutionary scale with with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. This column is a column of time, right? With the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top?
Well, first, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. The entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). Your column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.
Secondly, the typical evolutionary presentation in the column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly, every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.
Third, these diverse forms continue up the column with much the same appearance possessed at the start. Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.
The fossil record certainly does not prove evolution. On the other hand, its character fully supports creation of multiple "kinds" at the start with no evolutionary lineage, and continuance of those rather static kinds with limited adaptations into the present, or else going extinct. This is the creation idea.
What the fossils do support is proof of a massive flood of Biblical proportions. While no evolutionary trends can be seen bridging the basic kinds and producing new ones, we do see a transition from totally marine at the bottom to more terrestrial toward the top. At every level the dominant fossil is marine, but more and more land-dwelling fossils creep in.
And, evidently, we need to discuss in further detail some of the structural changes needed for some of evolution's leaps. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.
Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on.
Evolution, as a concept of everything, is worse than non-science, it is nonsense. The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination???
You mentioned micro and macro-evolution, which is of course very important. In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Scientists (even some evolutionists) who understand the amazing complexity inside a living cell know it could never have evolved; it had to be created. This is the "elephant in the room". But science cannot say who the creator was. It might have been several creators or even “little green men” from Mars. Nevertheless, when one understands the evidence, it is clear that this amazing complexity could not have evolved. It is hard to imagine an unbiased person who understands the evidence reaching any other conclusion.
As more has been learned, evolution appears even weaker. It is a theory in crisis, a theory without a mechanism.
This column is a column of time, right? With the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top? Yes. OK, sometimes we put the present on the bottom.
Well, first, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top.
You have a scoop. Where are the Precambrian rabbits?
The fossils at the bottom are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts.
The fossils at the bottom are one-celled and non-nucleated, just what the timeline above says. (Except it has them on the top.) There are no big, nucleated cells until about 1.2 billion years ago. Then and only then, you finally get something as complicated as an amoeba.
A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals)...
A very good case indeed.
... but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries.
Ranges are subject to adjustment from new finds, yes. But just now, the ranges match the theory virtually to perfection. What are the odds that the observed ranges and order of appearance would match the expected evolutionary progression in 999 of 1000 cases?
Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.
None of our trilobites come from the Pleistocene, and none of our dinosaurs. You are making no sense here at all.
But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life.
True as far as it goes, but every creationist canard on the subject is wrong. We can see the evolution of many of the phyla in the fossil record. (There are also other lines of evidence, molecular and embryological.)
Third, these diverse forms continue up the column with much the same appearance possessed at the start.
Except where we see smooth, continuous change.
The fossil record certainly does not prove evolution.
It certainly supports it thoroughly. Some links on the subject:
THE FOSSIL RECORD: EVOLUTION OR "SCIENTIFIC CREATION",
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.
Your creationist sources have lied to you in every detail.
On the other hand, its character fully supports creation of multiple "kinds" at the start with no evolutionary lineage, and continuance of those rather static kinds with limited adaptations into the present, or else going extinct.
Just wrong. Utterly wrong. Note the preceding resources.
This is the creation idea.
Needs work.
And, evidently, we need to discuss in further detail some of the structural changes needed for some of evolution's leaps.
I mentioned back in 252 why it's silly to propose naive models of why something is impossible if there's plenty of evidence for it happening.
In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution."
Dishonest creationist "quote science." Lewin's article goes on to say, "What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap."
All the viewpoints expressed (as described by Lewin's article) would be considered evolutionary and Darwinian for the purposes of these threads.
Nothing you're saying is proving true. Does that bother you?