Evolution: another sudden appearance (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, January 26, 2024, 17:27 (300 days ago) @ David Turell

Insectivore mammals are the group:

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/01/fossil-friday-the-abrupt-origin-of-insectivore-mammals/

"The fossil record discussed above clearly contradicts the predictions from molecular clock studies which suggested a much older Cretaceous origin and diversification of Eulipotyphla about a 100-70 million years ago

***

"Actually, a growing number of experts thinks that there simply are no crown group placentals at all known from the Cretaceous fossil record (Novacek et al. 1997, Wible et al. 2005, 2007, 2009; Goswami et al. 2011, Archibald & Averianov 2012, Halliday 2015, Halliday et al. 2015, Velazco et al. 2022). The consistent mismatch between molecular clock datings and empirical data from the fossil record is another striking empirical failure of Darwinian theory that should give evolutionary biologists reason to pause. The fact that it does not, shows how much this discipline is suffering from world view bias and dogmatic blinders to any conflicting evidence.

***

"We can conclude that Eulipotyphla appeared abruptly in the Paleocene about 66-61.7 million years ago, not just with a diversity of stem group taxa but already with crown group representatives. This is highly unexpected under neo-Darwinism, as we have already seen in all the examples of the other orders we discussed previously in this article series.

"We can also conclude that insectivore systematics and phylogeny are a horrible mess that perfectly illustrates the dubious nature of the whole discipline. The history of insectivore systematics proves that neither morphological nor molecular and genetic similarities correlate with a unique nested hierarchy and thus cannot be considered as lending strong support for Darwinian evolution. The one true tree of life seems to be an elusive myth rather than a scientifically established fact. This does not necessarily imply that common descent is false, but it definitely implies that one of its strongest alleged pieces of evidence does not stand up to scrutiny."

Comment: A missing fossil group is not suggested by Bechly. His criticisms of Darwinism continue.