Originally posted by Halitose
lol. Don't worry, I'm not just taking his word for it, I'm busy working my way through his "A Brief History of Time".

LOL, that's a book that will REALLY give you an appreciation of how long a billion years is!!!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You'd be surprised what you can observe with the tools we have nowadays; we can tell the environmental conditions under which rocks were formed. we can see a definite size split in the fossil record between unicellular and multicellular life. We can use a variety of genetic, physiological and biochemical techniques to prove the links. Cladistics is a powerful tool. You should learn about it.

It's far from conclusively proven, in my opinion. That is also circular reasoning: you define homology as similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and then state that homology is evidence for common ancestry.

IMHO science needs a tad more empirical evidence that is not influenced by presuppositions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm afraid we have the fossil record to prove what you call 'macro' evolution. Ever heard of archaeopteryx, or ceolocanths?

If not bundled into the preconcieved idea of evolution, they would be just that...

Originally posted by Halitose
It's far from conclusively proven, in my opinion. That is also circular reasoning: you define homology as similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and then state that homology is evidence for common ancestry.

IMHO science needs a tad more empirical evidence that is not influenced by presuppositions.

So, because two things have common ancestory and are therefore similar, and the statement that two things are similar and therefore probably have common ancestory are not able to sit side by side?

I've asked this question before - if god can create everything al fresco, why create everything so similar - physiologically, developmentally and genetically? The chances of creating eveything differently if you were a creator are far far higher than creating everything similarly.

Originally posted by Halitose
If not bundled into the preconcieved idea of evolution, they would be just that...

They are the test of a hypothesis, nothing more or less. ID is more of an attempt to find evidence for a doctorine, because the proponents cherrypick their evidence.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, because two things have common ancestory and are therefore similar, and the statement that two things are similar and therefore probably have common ancestory are not able to sit side by side?

I've asked this question before - if god can create everything al fresco, why create everything so similar - physiologically, developmentally and genetica ...[text shortened]... eything differently if you were a creator are far far higher than creating everything similarly.

So, because two things have common ancestory and are therefore similar, and the statement that two things are similar and therefore probably have common ancestory are not able to sit side by side?

Using homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning: How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have features that are homologous. But how do you know the structures are homologous? Because the two organisms share a common ancestor.

Leaving aside the problem of circularity, it is far from clear that similarities, as such, are best explained by common descent. If we knew there were a mechanism that could produce humans, mice and bats from a common ancestor, that claim would be plausible. But the mechanism is the very thing in question. A classical example of the logical fallacy petitio principii.

I've asked this question before - if god can create everything al fresco, why create everything so similar - physiologically, developmentally and genetically? The chances of creating eveything differently if you were a creator are far far higher than creating everything similarly.

Why would you assign a statistical analysis to Intelligence? It either does it or not, it’s got nothing to do with the chances of it happening. Homology could just as well be proof for common design. How do you instantly recognise a famous painter's art? Their brush strokes are similar from art piece to art piece; the lighting; the style.

BTW, I adhere to the theory of multiple separate ancestries*.

*http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html

Originally posted by scottishinnz
ID is more of an attempt to find evidence for a doctorine, because the proponents cherrypick their evidence.

Really?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
They are the test of a hypothesis, nothing more or less. ID is more of an attempt to find evidence for a doctorine, because the proponents cherrypick their evidence.

They are the test of a hypothesis, nothing more or less.

Then having the fossil of a dead bird with teeth and claws is hardly proof that reptiles developed feathers and wings over millions of years - that is biased science to the highest degree.

Originally posted by Halitose
lol. Don't worry, I'm not just taking his word for it, I'm busy working my way through his "A Brief History of Time".

Good book. Although i have problems considering the event horizon of black holes still, i like the chapter on reativity of time. Are you finding it hard reading? I didn't but i guess some people did as they have made a shorter version.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]They are the test of a hypothesis, nothing more or less.

Then having the fossil of a dead bird with teeth and claws is hardly proof that reptiles developed feathers and wings over millions of years - that is biased science to the highest degree.[/b]

Whats needed is a time line of the creatures evolution with each fossil sound in diffrent strata with diffrent features that when put into a time scale the changes become apparent

Originally posted by Will Everitt
Whats needed is a time line of the creatures evolution with each fossil sound in diffrent strata with diffrent features that when put into a time scale the changes become apparent

Well,

We've got reptiles in one strata, a reptile with teeth, feathers a santa hat and beard (it's Xmas day here - i couldn't resist) in the next strata then early 'birds' within the next strata. Doesn't get all that much more convincing. (p.s. the strata need not be all from the same place - we can ID (that is Identify, not Intelligent Design) strata from different places using isotopic analysis, as well as looking at what other fossils are there.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]So, because two things have common ancestory and are therefore similar, and the statement that two things are similar and therefore probably have common ancestory are not able to sit side by side?

Using homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning: How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have feat ...[text shortened]... y of multiple separate ancestries*.

*http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html[/b]

"Using homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning: How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have features that are homologous. But how do you know the structures are homologous? Because the two organisms share a common ancestor."

Not exactly the way we do it.... A kidney is a kidney is a kidney for example. The birds cardiovascular system has distinctive features that ties all birds together. What does this tell us? That all mammals had a common ancestor with kidneys, since kidney's could not have arrised 100 times independantly. it tells us that all birds had a common ancestor.


"If we knew there were a mechanism that could produce humans, mice and bats from a common ancestor, that claim would be plausible. "


See the science article I posted earlier. Read the paper on speciation. The mechanism exists and has been published.

"Why would you assign a statistical analysis to Intelligence?"


I didn't. I pointed out that we share 99% of our DNA with chimps, 70% with brocolli. We have common subcellular organisation with every other eukaryotic cell on the planet. We have similar physiologies and biochemistries. Now, out of all the possibilities open to god why this one? The odds of a concious choice to make everything so similar are staggeringly unlikely if evolution is taken out as a factor.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]There is only 1 universe...

Whoops! You must have missed the "Parallel Universes"* theory, which tries to negate the Big-Question unanswered by the Big-Bang: who/what was the cause for such a cataclysmic event?

Their answer: Duh! We are just part of a bigger system of universes that collide and interact!

http://www.manyuniverses.com/

Edit: Also -- with such a huge reproduction rate, has E Coli produced anything but itself?[/b]

...the Big-Question unanswered by the Big-Bang: who/what was the cause for such a cataclysmic event?


What about the Big-Question unanswered by creationists who think they know the cause of the Big Bang? Who/what was the cause for this God being who supposedly was the cause of the universe?

Also -- with such a huge reproduction rate, has E Coli produced anything but itself?

No. All descendents of E. coli cells are E. coli cells, I believe. Likewise, all descendents of mammals are mammals, all descendents of vertebrates are vertebrates, all descendents of cells are cells, etc. Why would you ask this question? Are you intending to mischaracterize evolutionary theory or are you just ignorant?

A LATER POST

As to "observed" speciation, has this ever led to anything more complex than a bacterium?

How does one quantify 'complexity' such that you can determine if one organism is more complex than another?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]...the Big-Question unanswered by the Big-Bang: who/what was the cause for such a cataclysmic event?


What about the Big-Question unanswered by creationists who think they know the cause of the Big Bang?
Also -- with such a huge reproduction rate, has E Coli produced anything but itself?

No. All descendents of E. coli cells ar ...[text shortened]... uantify 'complexity' such that you can determine if one organism is more complex than another?[/b]

Who/what was the cause for this God being who supposedly was the cause of the universe?
So, you are agreeing that it comes down to faith?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Who/what was the cause for this God being who supposedly was the cause of the universe?
So, you are agreeing that it comes down to faith?[/b]

No, he's pointing out that the questions we cannot answer as scientists, you are equally unable to answer as god botherers.