Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
Thanks for the ping!
"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."
Grand theory with absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. This is based on speculation because all life on Earth share genetics in common. They can't explain why that is, just that it is.
Except for genetics (including ERV insertions), biogeographical distribution patterns of living species, morphological evidence, thousands of transitional fossils, ring species, etc. - the list keeps going. I'm guessing you didn't read through very much of the link I provided (though I may be wrong).
Not only that, evolution makes specific, testable predictions, just like any other valid scientific theory.
"Unfortunately, it's impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. The theory may agree beautifully with all the evidence - today. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.
So, we go for the next best thing, which is proving theories wrong. That's easy. You just find some evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The theory is then falsified and stays that way."
You should actually read what you are using for your support. When the evolutionists profer up a theory which they know cannot be disproven, then say it's valid because you cannot disprove it, that should say it all.
Numerous observations could potentially falsify evolution. They just haven't happened yet, instead the predictions that scientists make using evolution are confirmed, again and again. No scientific theory is more soundly based in empirical evidence, observation, and successful prediction.
Except that they never produce the empirical date which they claim supports the theory. They just provide more evidence that the theory hasn't been discredited. Read the information provided by Quark. When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.
Um, no.
I have no idea what "missing link" you are referring to, and I get the impression you don't really want to learn anything about the vast number of fossils we already have that show transitions between types of life. There's a lot of info in those links, but you have to read it and try to understand it for it to make sense.
What would convince you as filling the missing link? Did you examine the pre-historic hominid skull sequence in the article? Where in that sequence do you think the unbridgeable gap lies? Which of those skulls do you think are human, and which do you think are non-human ape? Did you read and understand the ERV evidence?
That's easy. This is a transitional, what some call a missing link. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center). This specimen is about midway between very ape-like critters and modern humans (but its not missing):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.
Early Human Phylogeny. Relationships among early human species.
Man-chimp evolution. Ichneumon's post 29.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
You can't make me see! [/creationist mode]
"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."
These are just words. They don't prove anything at all. It is just speculation brought about by genetic similarities found among difference species on Planet Earth (where all life is based on the same conditions - thus you would expect to find genetic similarities)
"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."
Again, another statement which has zero evidence. To claim that a phytoplankton shares the same genetic structure with a human as a twin shares with it's twin is ludicrous on its face. And, as far as fossil evidence, where has anyone demonstrtated definitively that one creature evolved from another. Again, just a theory with no link from one fossil to another (other than what the scientist who makes the claim is claiming) Just because two things show structural similarities doesn't prove one evolved into the other. It is just a theory.
Of course its a theory. What else would it be?
From my list of definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
I do not see the evidence, just words that are used by scientists to claim what they claim is true. There are no "transitional" fossils which clearly link one species to another, only fossils which show similarities of structure -that doesn't prove their theory.
Heliocentrism is 'just a theory'. Relativity is 'just a theory'. The periodicity of elements is 'just a theory'. Radioactivity is 'just a theory'. (But all of them, including evolution, are working theories.)
I see you read a couple introductory paragraphs. That's a good start, but hardly enough to start running a reliable commentary on the substance of a theory that's been built over 150 years. Learning science takes a lot of time and work. If you're not willing to do the time and work, perhaps you should defer expertise to the scientists who actually do this research. They know much more about evolution and how it works than either you or I.
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion.
Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters. The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects
of the universe.
Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Scripture tells us in Hebrews 11:3 that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
It is also interesting to note that scientists now understand the universe is expanding or stretching out.
Nine times in Scripture we are told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain (e.g., Psalm 104:2).
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earths free float in space: He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing (Job 26:7).
The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a
flat disk, as some skeptics maintain, but to a sphere.
Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.