Replies

Try the first 10 or 20 links at the following URL

http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+common+descent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Thanks. One good one that you're familiar with would have been sufficient. I think someone already pointed out that posting a link to a list of google results hardly constitutes evidence.

But in any case, I'm reading through the first link -- the 29+ reasons on talk origins.

So far I haven't gotten to the good part yet because I haven't found anything anywheres near evidence. But I'm still reading through it.

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the best evidence is actually no big thing but lots and lots of little things, each by themselves worth almost nothing, but all together, like a bag of a thousand pennies, begin to carry some weight.

The only problem is that just as many little things that didn't make sense with evolution could be discarded quetly as each being of almost no value, and nobody would ever mis them due to the overwhelming number of small evidences in favor.

This way, when someone argues against one of these many little evidences, you can say "Oh well what's the big deal. There's lots of other evidence anyway, why throw out all of science because some little thing doesn't make sense." Of course with this attitude, when it would be possible for every single instance of evidence supporting "Creation by speciation" to be false, and by examining only one of many small evidences at a time, the observers of the debate could continuously be lead to believe that "All the rest of the evidences are true even if the current one is weak." Almost a shell game!

Just for the sake of mentioning one's evidences I shall mention a couple that seem obvious to me.

When I look around, I see certain themes that run through all of life. For example, that mamals and many insects have a sort of bilateral symmetry of visible features. In other words, if they have one of it, it's down the middle. If they have two of it, it's one on the right and one on the left. This goes for a lot of non-mammals as well, like most insects. Now inside, where things aren't visible, there are lots of non-symmetrical things. Obviously lungs and kidneys are laterally symmetrical, but lots of stuff isn't, like guts, liver, spleen, heart, and so on.

Now if the true story was from goo to you by way of the zoo, then I would expect that there would have been many other shapes of animals, with for example, 5 arms or 3 eyes or whatever. But I have yet to find any such species! It sure looks to me like they were all designed by a designer who just did it the way he did it.

Also the similarity of the function of DNA in all life forms. It seems entirely possible and even likely that drastically different types of life forms would have come to be at the DNA level as well.

The Jugular vein: Why is that in such a vulnerable place? You'd think that after millions of generations, a process which developed subtle things like finger prints could have found a better way to protect the main blood return lines from the brain! My only conclusion is that it must have been created that way. After all, the nerve bundle is inside a bone shield. The eyes are set deep in sockets. The lungs and heart shielded by a rib cage all the way around.

The eyeball: I've noticed that the complexity of the eye is rather puzzling. So many vastly different types of animals have eyes which suggests that the eye must have developed so long ago that even the very primitive granddaddy of all complex eyed creatures must have had very advanced eyes. But I wouldn't expect such an advanced eye on such a primitive species. Neither do I find likely the idea that the eye evolved so similarly in multiple independent cases.

Speaking of ball type things, there is another item which is sort of in a vulnerable spot and suffers from the same issue as the jugular would. How come evolution couldn't have put those in where they belong?

Thanks,

-Jesse

(Said tokenathiest) Try the first 10 or 20 links at the following URL

http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+common+descent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Coyoteman, per tokenathiest's suggestion I'm reading through the first link of the list he provided me, which (at least at the time) was the 29+ evidences at talk origins.

However, on this page, we read:

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists.

It describes it both as a theory and as something that is commonly called fact.

Does the hypotheses that all diversity of life came to be by macroevolution(hey they used the word) really rise to the level of theory and fact?

In your post 407 you mentioned that the current scientific hypotheses regarding origins were plausible and based on limited evidence, but did not rise to the level of a theory.

Also, on this page, it seems to quite strongly indicate that the idea of "goo to you by way of the zoo" is theory and fact. They say in many ways and by many quotes from different authors that it is all theory and fact. Quoting Gould, they say "And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

That almost sounds like "We may not know how it happened, but we're certain it did happen." Also seems a little dogmatic to me.

Anyway, Coyote, my one question is whether these articles I'm reading are right on the money or a bit biased?

Thanks,

-Jesse