Of Fish and Humans

How about non-biological differences? That is the most important part.

Changes to the environment don't CAUSE genetic changes.
Changes to the environment controls genetic changes

You put the wrong words into my mount and then said I am wrong.

Paleontology started thousands years ago without any other supporting studies. Compare bones is only thing you need to do. Of course, the better the tools, the better the classification.

So, to be confident on human evolution is wrong. One should study human evolution, but with no confidence on anything.

We use chronology to arrange bones. However, if the chronology is wrong but not aware of, the wrong arrangement may STILL "make sense". If the chronology is corrected later, then the rearranged bones would get another sensible interpretation. That is the moment same as when one does not know how to put a few odd pieces into established categories.

We use chronology when the morphology is confusing. The goal is still focused on the morphological sequence.

After the help of chronology, the rest of the story is still developed based on the morphological change.

Common, you may as well quit on this line. I am not a paleontologist. But I have a few as my neighbors for many years. I know the study.

Just like you are now. you argue based on what you learned from books/labs. In fact, they are not YOUR arguments.

The one-line argument I made above IS MINE.

As I said, chronology is only a help.

I believe if one is really good in morphology (such as me, to non-biological stuff), the chronology help is not needed. Chronological data are only used to ease the mind.

I disagree: if we randomise the ordering of, say, the fossil record of horse evolution, the findings won't make any sense. If we go by chronology, we see a gradual change.


Nope. The goal is to understand how species are interrelated.


Because morphological change is the easiest way to document long-term evolution: if the theory of common descent is true, gradated morphological trend is effectively guaranteed.


So your experience in this field is, quite literally, "my neighbours were palaeontologists, therefore I am qualified to refute the entire field"? Good Lord, whatever happened to humility?


Indeed: the arguments I espouse have been honed over two centuries by countless scientists, qualified experts, and overwhelming empirical data from multiple independent lines of evidence. I am more than willing to defer to their expertise.
You, on the other hand, have no qualifications other than your proximity to you palaeontological neighbours.


Morphology isn't useful if you don't know when the organism lived. Besides, the point is that we use all the evidence available to us, and it all points to the same conclusion: morphology, chronology, fossils, geologic strata, palaeometerology, archaeology, comparative genetics, geographical distribution, ERV distribution, etc.