Yes, Razzy, they gave up on progression to higher forms of life although isuch a progression is patently clear ...
Nope. Nice subjective assertion.
They "gave up" on it because it unnecessarily implied wrong thinking, that one form of life was "better" than another.
... since that's the basis on which the taxonomic tree was also built. ...
quote:The idea of a "tree of life" arose from ancient notions of a ladder-like progression from lower into higher forms of life (such as in the Great Chain of Being). Early representations of "branching" phylogenetic trees include a "paleontological chart" showing the geological relationships among plants and animals in the book Elementary Geology, by Edward Hitchcock (first edition: 1840).
Charles Darwin (1859) also produced one of the first illustrations and crucially popularized the notion of an evolutionary "tree" in his seminal book The Origin of Species. Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because such diagrams effectively convey the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptive and semirandom splitting of lineages. Over time, species classification has become less static and more dynamic.
The term phylogenetic, or phylogeny, derives from the two ancient greek words φῦλον (phûlon), meaning "race, lineage", and γένεσις (génesis), meaning "origin, source".
... And for all its strong assertion that complexity has taken the place of that supposedly erroneous system absolutely not one word is said of evidence that complexity is involved at all. You are subjectively assessing superficial characteristics as more or less complex, but such subjectivity is not science.
Are plants with roots and leaves and sap vesicles more complex than ones without?
But we can use diversity instead: these new/novel traits add to the diversity of life that didn't exist before.
Adding roots and leaves and sap vesicles makes plant life more diverse.
Are grasses more complex than angiosperms? ...
Grasses are angiosperms. Their development added to the diversity of angiosperms.
Isn't it true that there are some insects or worms that have more genes than human beings?
Oh I've noticed how you and PK are asserting that just because something appears in a layer doesn't mean it doesn't also appear in the layer above ...
Because that is what the evidence shows. So?
... and I've answered that it's not science to leave it out pf the discussion of what appears where, ...
But it is science when discussing first appearances -- which it seems I have been at pains to explain to you in each of your post replies.
It is the first appearances that determine which traits are older.
Let's say - just for giggles - that every trait listed has continued until today: how does that affect the fact that the lowest/oldest layers only contain single cell plant life, that the newer/higher layers, layer by layer show new traits are added, until you have the full diversity seen today?
... AND that it most likely appears in smaller numbers which would fit sorting by some mechanical process ...
And what kind of mechanical process sorts the plant life in the layers of sediments so that we see the increasing complexity/diversity from layer to layer?
Spit it out Faith: this is what you should be talking about.
... but makes no sense on the ToE/OE system.
Except that it makes perfect sense to the "ToE/OE system" in spite of your misinformed assertion.
Meanwhile the appearance of greater diversity over time, layer by layer, does indeed present problems for any rational floodist model of deposition.
Hold the Press. It was scientifically discovered that the ferns were created on the same day as the flowering plants. Ferns were created early in the morning, while flowering plants were created in the afternoon, just before sunset. Thus flowering plants were waaaay younger than ferns and therefore could run faster away from the magic fluddy than ferns could. Remember the scientific discovery of genetic entropy and all that. Science is great, isn't it?
Upon review I see that all these traits exist today, so we can summarize the data as follow:
We know by the law of superposition that the deeper sedimentary layers are older than the sedimentary layers over them. We know this rationally because succeeding layers are deposited on top of the previous layers.
Thus the diagram represents relative ages of the fossils in the respective layers, with oldest at the bottom and youngest at the top.
Each layer also contains fossil samples similar to layers below them but not those above them.
Thus they show the relative timeline of plant traits from the first life until today.
This is objective empirical evidence of the actual timing of developing these plant traits.
Nothing is ever going change that believe of him/her. Remember, if Faith ever changed that believe, he/she will burn for ever and ever (in his/her mind).
On a wider note (and playing amateur psychologist here), this does underline what I think is the main reason for Trump's unwavering evangelical support base, in the face of so much evidence that he is a lying hawkster. They cannot admit, ever, under any circumstances, that they believe in something based on lies. They have to deny any and all evidence to the contrary. Because if they admit that one thing they have believed in is a lie, then it automatically calls into question everything else they believe in.
Their blind support for Trump has less, I think, to do with any genuine need to believe in him - it's more to do with a fear that acceptance of any belief as being false means that they might also be wrong about booking their ticket to heaven by wearing the evangelical Christian badge of their choice.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
This does not belong on this thread but I'll answer by saying that the number One reason Trump supporters support Trump is the absolute ****** of the Democrats. His "lies" are just sloppy thinking and not about anything important so we don't care. He's flawed, so what, he's also done a LOT of good for the country and we know that's where his heart is. You guys have NO idea why Trump is popular -- and you aren't going to anticipate how wildly UNpopular any Dem candidate is going to be either.