Only if you believe that complex life spontaneously appears, "fully formed" out of nowhere before blipping out of existence and then another form of life that - completely by coincidence - happens to bear a lot of physiological similarities to the previous "fully formed" life form spontaneously appeared out of nowhere and blipping out of existence itself, and that this process repeated for millions of years until relatively recently when it suddenly stopped for apparently no reason whatsoever. None of this has ever been observed, and we have no reason to believe that entire populations of complex animals can appear spontaneously out of thin air.
I think scientists at one time believed in that idea, until it was demonstrated to be wrong.
I believe life was created. That does not mean popped out of thin air.
If, however, you understand two things:
1) The only known and understood mechanism of complex living things coming into existence is reproduction, and
2) The only known and understood mechanism for complex living organisms to share physiological or genetic traits is common ancestry,
Then you realize that looking at the fossil record shows a clear and unambiguous progression of diversification of living populations.
So, if you believe #1, then I would think there is a problem - What reproduced to produce the first reproducing ancestor?
Looking at the fossil record does not show what you say, but I understand we wil not move past this for the next 180 years.
Abrupt appearance of major bilaterian clades in the fossil record during the first three stages of the Cambrian Period has puzzled the scientific world since 1830s.
But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket.
Evolution is far too complex to be explained by a few roots and branches, [scientists] claim.
Biology currently lacks a robust and comprehensive description of early evolution.
We should aim to fill that void, but in a language that operates with biology and chemistry, not with branching patterns in phylogenetic trees, versions of which based on informational genes are called the tree of life.
After 180 years, we still have a rootless tree, and still can't figure out how we got branches, yet you think everything is smooth.
Do you presume that we need examples of every single generation of every single species that has ever lived before we can safely conclude that the thousands upon thousands of examples we have show clear diversification of species? This is obviously unreasonable. Just because we don't have a complete picture doesn't mean we can't reasonably draw conclusions from the evidence we have, and the only reasonable conclusion of the thousands of examples we have is that they are explained by common ancestry.
I don't recall saying I presume any such thing.
What I recall saying, was this...
Aside from that, are the many inferences made which basically are made to represent a hypothesis, or idea.
The problems to the theory, namely the millions of missing transitions, have been "swept under the rug", and many "band=aids put on the sores", so in my view, the theory is actually like a broken toy, fixed up to look nice for the little children to come in and buy.
The one who propose the theory in 1859 in his book "
On the Origin of Species", is the one who acknowledged the many features of the theory that are missing, including the slow and gradual process.
Did I say something that isn't true?
Maybe an entirely new makeover is on the tables, but I am only going by what was proposed.