Explore BrainMass
Share

Explore BrainMass

    Common ancestry as gravity or faith

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Why does Coyne claim that common ancestry is on a par with gravity? If I pick up something and then let it fall to the ground, am i assuming gravity or watching it in action? If no one can possibly obeserve ancestry and descent in fossil species, how can common ancestry be as "factual" as something all of us can observe with our own eyes? Only with an impressive leap of faith." ( read pharagraphy - Why The "Overwhelming" Evidence For Evolution Isn't ) Wells' point is that evolutionary theory cannot be confirmed by direct observation, so there is no good reason to believe that it is true. He argues that evolutionary theory is a set of assumptions that color our perspective and allow evolutionists to connect the dots in a way that would never happen without those evolutionary assumptions. On the contrary, wells claims that design may be observed or at least inferred from direct observation.

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2933&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 6:07 pm ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/biology/common-ancestry-gravity-faith-78581

    Solution Preview

    The issue centers around, not the microevolutionary changes that occur in order for species to survive, but the origin of the species in the first place. The former is called microevolution, while the latter is an extrapolation called macroevolution. No one, neither the Darwinian evolutionist nor the ID proponent debates the scientific veracity of microevolutionary change. We may squabble over the actual mechanisms involved, but the data is sound enough for both camps to accept. The problem is inferencing from that to the big picture. Are the small minor changes that take place when HIV mutates in order to survive and spread, the same mechanisms that took place years ago to account for the appearance of turtles, humans, birds, trees, or even protozoa? Or, are there other reasonable explanations, such as the inference of intelligent design?

    Keep that in mind for that's the real issue. To the Darwinian, he is quick to extrapolate and assume that the former explains the latter. To the IDer, he is not so quick to ...

    Solution Summary

    The expert examines common ancestry as gravity or faith. The evolutionary theories which cannot be confirmed are discussed.

    $2.19