Common Descent, science and empiricism
Common Descent has never been observed- not even in the fossil record. The premise cannot even be tested via experiment because of the eons of time that are required.
Heck we can't even conduct an experiment that would show that a population of flagella-less bacteria can "evolve" a flagellum.
And in the end we still can't account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between alleged closely related species such as chimps and humans. No one knows whether or not any mechanism can account for them. You would figure that with such an alleged degree of similarity in genomes that those differences would be easy to flesh out. Yet still nothing but silence on this issue.
Ya see THAT is the main problem with Common Descent- it needs to account for those differences yet it doesn't even attempt to.
Main Entry: em•pir•i•cal
Variant(s): also em•pir•ic /-ik/
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience (empirical data)
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory (an empirical basis for the theory)
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment (empirical laws)
4 : of or relating to empiricism
Main Entry: em•pir•i•cism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"si-z&m, em-
1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY
2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
Any comments that expose the dishonesty and/ or stupidity of any anti-IDist or ID critic will be allowed and treated as "on-topic".