Posted: Feb 25, 2014 6:31 pm
by questioner121
Skate wrote:Damn, Calilasseia! Nice post.


Is it correct that your argument sums up to amount to something akin to "you weren't there, so you can't know?" Others have said this, but I'd like to confirm that this is the case.

If so, I'd like to ask you how you think the Hawaiian Islands were formed.

Obviously "you weren't there, so you can't know?" applies. The point I'm trying to get across, with huge difficulties, is that the evidence supporting common ancestry is severely lacking data. The abundance of data that is used to support common ancestry is based off observations from closely related species. This is then being combined with other sets of data with observations from closely related species to "confirm" common ancestry. The missing data is for one species right through to a very different species, such as from primate to human, reptile to bird, etc is simply not there. Citing extinctions and whatever else might have caused the common ancestor to be no longer around or missing chains from ring species is just not relevant. We know species die off and there can be numerous reasons. There needs to be actual evidence of one species going to a completely different one before it can be confirmed. Otherwise inference from the current data is ridiculous to confirm common ancestry beyond reasonable doubt especially given the understanding of nature we have which is hugely complex and in many situations quite unpredictable.