[Physicist]

I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent." Of course, the existence of this template presupposes evolutionary theory to be true.

But it's not sufficient. Fortunately, the similarity of morphology is shown to develop over time (sometimes in stunning detail) by the time-ordered sequence of the fossil beds, and that is sufficient to establish common descent as a historical fact, without presupposing any theoretical template. But wait, there's an independent test: that entire structure is accurately mirrored by the analogous tree that can be constructed from gene sequences.

In short, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is nothing at all like your "simplistic template".

[Old_Mil]

But it's not sufficient. Fortunately, the similarity of morphology is shown to develop over time (sometimes in stunning detail) by the time-ordered sequence of the fossil beds, and that is sufficient to establish common descent as a historical fact, without presupposing any theoretical template.

First, it is a logical template, not a historical template. Secondarily, the assertion you make of the fossil beds serving as a time-ordered catalog of sequential morphology is simply false. Were it to have been true, evolutionists themselves would not have had to put forth hopeful monster theories to explain their contents. Furthermore, your interpretation of the fossil beds hinges on the assumption that geologically, gradualism trumps catastrophism.

But wait, there's an independent test: that entire structure is accurately mirrored by the analogous tree that can be constructed from gene sequences.

Again, the template. What really needs to happen if evolution is to take a rightful place at the table of empirical science is for endosymbiotic activity involving prokaryotes to be observed under the microscope or for phylization of some short-lived organism in a Mendalian experiment of epic proportions. This sort of data would actually serve as "proof" of evolution. However, it doesn't exist.