- Jan 30, 2014
- 1,856
- 50
- 48
I mean that in general, the field of evolutionary biology has concluded that all life on earth shares a common ancestry, birds and reptiles share a common ancestry, and humans share a common ancestry with other primates.UppsalaDragby said:Well that depends on what you mean by the following remark:
"Evolutionary biology has reached conclusions about a range of questions (common ancestry, evolutionary relatedness of taxa);"
So again, what alternative explanations did you think I was excluding when you said "You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing"?
I know you didn't claim either, that's why I'm asking. Again, did you conclude that the burglary scenario is more likely than the sleepwalker, or did you assume it?I didn't claim to do either, so what exactly is your question based on?
No one has said that every jury verdict is always correct. But I'm asking you, is it more accurate to say a jury reaches a conclusion, or to say a jury assumes a verdict?The task given to a jury it so make judegments. The conclusion that those judgements are always correct can never be made.
See above for what conclusions have been reached by evolutionary biologists.And of course my answer depends on what conclusions are being drawn. For example, we CAN conclude that birds and reptiles have similarities, just as we CAN conclude that humans and primates have similarities, which is why I answered yes to that particular question.
And I guess I'm a little confused about what you're saying here. You agreed that science can draw accurate, reliable conclusions about reptile-bird common ancestry and human-primate common ancestry, but not about universal common ancestry. Why first two, but not the third? Also, if science is able to reach conclusions that are both reliable and accurate about those areas, why are they not able to access the truth about them?
So you believe there's not one single shred of evidence for common ancestry between different taxa? Not one thing at all?The reason I don't believe such evidence is accessible is that it leans towards the presupposition that evidence of common ancestory actually exists.
Why not?And while it is somehow possible that there is evidence that birds and repiles, or humans and primates could not have had a common anscestor, I don't believe that it can be found.