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
Somehow I feel that if your deity came down and told you personality that evolution is how he did it that, rather than accept it, you would convert religions.
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the best evidence is actually no big thing but lots and lots of little things,
It think that's true. It's like a court case where nobody saw the crime but there's blood, a weapon, a pattern of behavior, etc., each of which the defendant might explain away but which taken together point to one overwhelmingly plausible story.
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.
But if we're all one family, why would there be members whose physical appearance is so different? I would expect that if there were a designer who could do anything they wanted, that's when we'd see things like 3 eyes. The problem with attributing it all to a "a designer who just did it the way he did it" is that by answering all questions, it doesn't really answer any. Why do we have finger bones that can be matched up with a bat's wing bones? "Just because he did it that way" isn't a very satisfying answer--to me.
The Jugular vein: Why is that in such a vulnerable place?
Ask your designer. See, that, to me, is one of the innumerable examples of unintelligent design that don't make sense if there's an all-powerful designer. Why am I trying to play basketball on joints that are held together by rubber bands? Why is there a part of my eye I just can't see out of? That's not very good design. But I can understand it as the culmination of a long, long series of engineering compromises and adaptations of old parts to new purposes.
Of course, if there is a Designer and he did use evolution, we are this way just because it's the way he did it. That part holds true no matter how he did it.