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",Your creationist sources have lied to you in every detail.
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.
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?