Do common structures within organisms really prove common descent?
>>8507247
Given the various additional facts they strongly support common descent as a scientific theory.
>>8507351
>various additional facts
Such as?
>>8507247
They dont prove it but they are good evidence
Its genetic relationships that rove it
>>8507247
>prove
there is no proof in Science
Lrn2science pleb
There is also covergent evolution
>>8507247
Science can't "prove" anything
>>8507247
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1
>>8507650
Fossil record requiring constant introduction of new species to exist in its current form.
Basic observable facts of inheritance and mutation.
Hybrids, Ring species, speciation.
Various vestigial traits or development pathways (I think development pathways would be the right way to say it. Think along the lines of subjecting an Axolotl to different conditions during development so that it develops past its default "larval" state).
The observable genetic distance (On correct homologous gene sequences that aren't subject to large selective pressure) between different species based on the constant statistical rate of mutation.
Those kinds of facts.
>>8507900
Those are distinct from homologies though and typically don't fulfill homology criteria.
>>8507900
i think thats more analogy .
>>8507247
Depending on scale.
Prove, no. But the alternatives would require a sequence of events of such staggeringly low probability that I think you would have to be willfully ignoring data to accept them.
>>8508628
this gets a ((you))
>>8508628
This
>>8508628
100%
>>8508628
>>8508628
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults
>>8509284
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Testing
>>8509308
SPIRALS LMAO
>>8511329
Wow! Evolutionists BTFO!!!!!!!!!!