Yeah, I thought you would accept that. I just mentioned it because it is a necessary part of evolution.
Despite not having any experimental data concerning evolution, making such a claim mere assumption.
An absence of a common basic biochemistry would disprove universal common descent. It would not disprove creationism. In this way, evolution makes a testable prediction that could potentially falsify it. That is how science works.
You admitted before that Creationism would also expect this, Common design = Common Designer... Meaning your claim is not falsifiable since there are more than one potential cause. Additionally you've chosen to ignore my other (the main) point which is that due to a lack of experimental data confirming the hypothesis "evolution did it", you have no basis to claim these similarities is due to evolution. Until you can demonstate that evolution was the cause then you can't claim these things as evidence for evolution.
To help you understand here is an analogy.
Lets say your light goes off in your room, you can do one of two things.
1- Investigate the cause by checking the globe, wiring, main power switch etc.
2- Claim that the globe has blown without investigating / demonstrating that globe really is blown.
How silly is it to claim a conclusion without demonstrating that the conclusion you claim is the correct one. This is what you are doing here... You are claim X Y and Z are evidence of evolution, yet you have no tangible link to demonstrate that such things are in fact caused by evolution... In your opinion "evolution did it" (and you are entitled to that belief), however an opinion is not evidence.
The hypothesis is that all life has a common root. The prediction from that(relevant to this discussion) is that all life has some fundamental similarities. Experiments can and have been done to establuish whether or not that is so, and the prediction was confirmed.
Which is based on the assumption that evolution was the cause of the similarities... Whilst ignoring other potential causes.. Do you think that ignoring other mechanisms / causes and focusing on the one you want is scientific? A scientist is meant to consider ALL options and if that means his / her pet-theory cannot be claimed as a cause of something due to a lack of evidence linking the two then that is what any scientists worth his / her salt would do.
As I asked you what experiments were done to verify that evolution is the cause of these observed similarities, if you have no verification for this assumption then ALL other "experiments" are done on the assumption that evolution is true, which in effect is excluding all other explanations a priori... You know that REAL scientists look at the data first rather than assuming what they want the data to fit and then claim it does.
The nested hierarchy predates the theory of evolution, so clearly is not based on that assumption.
How does that address the fact that it is a man-made construct and therefore has no relevance to determine what reality is outside of the parameters WE create for it... (Or was this point ignored?)
Sure there are gaps. but also there are fossils of creatures that form transitional sequences. Archeopteryx is the classic example; clear evidence of a transition between reptiles and birds. Fossils like this are predicted by evolution - but not by creationism.
It seems you haven't kept up with the recent research... (Don't worry most evolutionists do this, they will not let new discoveries debunk their assumptions).
Archeropteryx is now believed to be a fully fledged bird in that it has the same wing design, skull and eyes of a modern bird.
One of the reasons it was claimed as a "transitional" is due to its claws despite the fact that there are two species of birds that exist with these same kind of claws, indicating that evolutionists are merely assuming a dino-claw link.
For more info check out this article
Common design = Common designer = Predicted by Creationists..... So you cannot claim that Creation cannot explain anything, additionally the article above gives a good explanation of the logic behind the Design hypothesis.
How much of the land where you live has been dug up looking for fossils? where I live, I think the answer is zero. We have dug up a tiny, tiny number of fossils presumably still in the ground.
Yet we have millions (possibly billions) of fossils... Surely at least one lineage of progression should have been found.
Additionally you do realise that you are using the argument to the future? (A logical fallacy). Hoping that future evidence will vindicate your claims is not scientific, in fact its known as wishful thinking or blind faith. Science is done on facts, not what people imagine will happen from future possible data.
We cannot. Science is not like that. All we can say is that it is very likely to be.
If you cannot know such a thing then how can you claim these similarities as evidence of evolution?
It makes no sense what-so-ever... I can almost hear the evolutionists say,
"Um we don't know if evolution was the actual cause of these observations, but we are going to claim that it was anyway because we want to, and so we can use it as evidence"
Remember what I told you? If you assume X caused Y then you cannot claim Y as evidence for X
That is called circular reasoning, and you have just indirectly admitted to it, thanks
The experiment is to dig up fossils. Darwin predicted transitional fossils, and not long after that prerdiction was confirmed when the archeopteryx fossil was discovered.
Digging up fossils is not an experiment... I suggest you go research what an experiment actually is. Additionally digging up fossils and making ad hoc observations doesn't address what I was asking for. I was asking for an experiment which supports the claim that these similarities was caused by evolution, now in order to do such you would need to jump in a time machine and study one of these organisms for "millions" of years and record the evolutionary progress over time... Otherwise all you and others are doing is simply making ad hoc observations and then assume "evolution did it".
Darwin claimed that there would be transitional fossils in the magnitude which I stated where one can see a gradual progression from one to the other, yet the "transitional fossils" found do not display this gradual change, meaning to claim one evolved to the other is to take a leap of blind faith.
No, it explaims them too. As I said, Soth America was once part of Australia, and had numerous marsupials too until it collided with North America. As far as I know, the opossum is the only survivor, and has spread northwards.
And as I said that is an ad hoc hypothesis created to explain away this contrary data. Do you KNOW that these marsupials crossed into the countries in this manner? If you cannot verify it then you are simply assuming it, which makes your claim an ad hoc hypothesis.
The two orders must have split a little before Australia and South America parted company. Again, neatly explained by evolution.
That is assuming you are correct... Not very scientific my friend
How does creationism explain this, by the way?
Creationism doesn't need to, since the observation is in direct contradiction with evolutionary claims
As opposed to creationism, which explains this how?
How does this change the fact that you were making an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away contrary data?
As I said Creationism doesn't need to explain this because it doesn't contradict our claims. I can easily say, God likes diversity. Easy.
Tectonic movement is well-established in geology, and can even be measured. The existence of a super-contient (Gondwana) consisting of Australia, South America and Antartica is generally accepted by the geological community.
Actually it was first mentioned in the Bible,
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. Genesis 1:9
If all the water is in one place, then all the land must be in one place too.
I appreciate they believe in an old Earth, so you will have no truck with them, but the evidence is there.
Explain the point please.
No, it is a vestigial organ because it is nolonger used for its primary function.
How can you claim what it's "Primary" function was? You are assuming this...
So why are most born without them? How does that make sense?
Why should I? It doesn't contradict Creationism... Wouldn't both occurrences defy evolution?
Again you need to explain the point in your own words.
We do not know - that is not how sciece works. However, evolution does explain it. Can creationism explain it?
Then you are admitting that you assume evolution and then claim such assumptions as evidence
Again, if you assume X did Y then you cannot claim Y is evidence for X, because you cannot know if X actually did Y because you are only assuming it...
And sorry that isn't how REAL science works.