"Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown?"
In what I have read in works on the subjects that are with the evolutionary perspective species, and genera, are discussed as lasting over some amount of time and not further, including the abstract that was linked to for me in another response. Of course the criteria of reproductive gene pools cannot be applied, but differentiated forms are expected, just as reproductive gene pools would not be so useful if they were not associated with any differentiated forms, different species are understood from that. And so it is understood that species are survived by other species in their place. Is it sequential for them? Maybe so. And genera are survived by other genera. And families are survived by other families. Are they all sequential, in any case that can be shown with it depicted? That is something I would like seeing, to understand anything differently.
I did go look. Perhaps I might be thought dense but I did not see it showing me there were examples of sequential species to separate genera to separate families. And I don't want to go by works either that may show me where I am wrong but can't know that. I would just want to see something for it here, where I ask, and not a sequence of very different forms being shown in a sequence.
Okay, there is corroboration if it can be disregarded that only gaps are found throughout where any sequences are shown, so that evolution to another family of species can't be shown. I still see nonbelievers coming here to mock the faith that God did things, and there is really nothing adequately showing there is no God involved. I won't bother trying to have those of you who are not believers to believe there is God, I do not think I can do that and it might not be possible to happen at all. But you have nothing for thinking you might show God was not there doing anything. There are mysteries we cannot understand, believers understand why that is, and those of you saying there is basis to say things explain themselves without God cannot show it in all things, there all the mysteries where you would still say you don't know, and you still won't, while God is dismissed, and it is not credible to hear that faith in God is not corroborated. What I see for God's work is just that God is organized in the creation, using what works well many times in different creatures, so it won't mean to me that this only corroborates evolution with no Creator.