the fossil record and the putative phylogenetic order. We repeated separate simulations for each set of stratigraphic categories indicated above (Fig. 5). In this case, the empirical distributions of correlations cannot be compared directly because the taxon sample sizes differ, but each empirical distribution can be compared to corresponding simulations. Since the simulations come from the same underlying model of correlated points, this gives us a means to say something about the differences between the stratigraphic categories. Our simulations do indicate that the phylogenies with only Mesozoic taxa appear to be notably more correlated than phylogenies with only Cenozoic taxa. Above the median, the Mesozoic-only phylogenies closely match the simulations from a 70% correlated set of points. This is also true for phylogenies involving both Paleozoic and Mesozoic taxa. For phylogenies with just Cenozoic taxa, the empirical distribution of correlations closely matches the simulations from a 60% correlated set of points. Phylogenies involving only Paleozoic or the entire Phanerozoic taxa also seem closely aligned to the 60% correlated set of simulations. Thus the apparent reduction in high correlation phylogenies in Cenozoic-only phylogenies may be an artifact, while the increase in high correlation phylogenies in the Mesozoic-only phylogenies appears to reflect a real difference. III. DISCUSSION Although the results reported by Wise (n.d.a.) are of potentially great significance to the creation model, there are several limitations to his study, namely: (1) it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, (2) it focused only on higher taxonomic categories (kingdoms, phyla, classes), and (3) it focused narrowly on the question of whether evolutionary phylogeny matched stratigraphy. The dataset we have assembled will allow a broader study (1) encompassing more taxonomic levels, and (2) making comparisons between supra- and intra-baraminic groups and (3) between different parts of the stratigraphic record (Palaeozoic vs. Mesozoic vs. Cenozoic). These new data will be valuable in addressing many outstanding questions within creationism, potentially including questions about Flood boundaries, holobaramin identification, the nature of the pre-Flood world, and why people believe that the fossil record so strongly supports an evolutionary interpretation. For example, with regard to the last question of why people believe the fossil record reveals the evolution of life, we note that our results indicate that the fossil record is only 70% correlated with the morphology of the creatures it contains. The correlation appears to go up in the Mesozoic. Given that our simulations still do not closely match the distribution of empirical correlations, this conclusion is likely to change with further refinements to our dataset and to our simulations. Still, one can more easily understand why a paleontologist might claim that the fossil record is the best evidence for evolution. On the other hand, those who claim that the fossil record is a “precise” or “exact” match to what we would expect if evolution were true are not likely to be correct. These conclusions must be tempered by a number of technical considerations. First, our conclusions rest on the idea that reconstructed phylogenies somehow reflect “true” evolutionary relationships. Since there are numerous reasons to question the validity of particular phylogenies (taxon sample bias, character sample bias, biases from phylogenetic reconstruction methodology) and the entire phylogenetic enterprise (evolution may be more reticulate), observing Figure 5. Distribution of Spearman rho correlations for phylogenies according to stratigraphic coverage. For key to models, see Figure 4. MCGUIRE et al. Testing the order of the fossil record 2023 ICC 484
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=