unlike idea/belief,evolution doesn't require faith as it's a proven FACT...

you haven't seen your grand grand grand parents existed and gave birth to your grand grand father but why do you think they have existed?similarly,we haven't seen big bang happened but does that mean we need to observe it in order to know that it did happen?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 02:42 PM

you have not answered my previous question,we haven't seen big bang but does that mean we need to observe it in order to know that it did happen?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:16 PM

then have you heard about about dating methods?geological dating?molecular clock?radiometric dating?Homology?Biogeography?falsifiability?peer review?etc...each of them contributes to the conclusion that 'humans and apes share a common ancestor',if you understand the meaning and applicability of each and everyone of the methods mentioned then you'll realize the evidence aren't circumstantial at all...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:31 PM

circumstantial is sometimes essential when you want to link an evidence to another,just like big bang theory,you can't expect to prove a single phenomenon by using a sole evidence...

then you should know the assumptions proposed have to be what?Falsifiable,able to prove the assumptions wrong is what makes them credible and reliable...
btw,when you said circumstantial i thought you meant depending on circumstance,my fault for not conveying my message clearly...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 6 2010, 11:30 PM

i just have to say that,wether you like it or not,believe it or not,Evolution is a fact is the consensus in the scientific community,you can choose to hide in the tortoise's shell but science has to move on regardless of the opinion of a bystander who is not specialized in the related field...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 3 2010, 04:57 PM

they can dismiss an evidence by simply calling it circumstantial,but when the evidence come in bulk and that each and everyone of them equally points to a sole direction and no other better possible explanations are available,they would then make up a rigid supportive sets of evidence which corroborate the truth of the conjecture previously held,that said,the conjecture must be shown falsifiable in advance...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 4 2010, 12:56 AM

here,read it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation

the earliest known human direct ancestor homo habilis was tail-less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
the lost of tail happened way earlier before the common ancestor of apes and humans split off,this is why human fossils with tails will never be found...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 4 2010, 06:58 PM