quote:
Right on . There is assumption going on about the same systems applied in the past.
While the intimate details of our reproduction were past unwitnessed events. Still for all intents it is a present observed thing.
How can it be for all intents an observed thing? Do you know how many conception events have been observed? It is hardly an observed thing. The mechanism of sexual reproduction rests upon the assumptions that the few observed events (and evidence from other sources i.e. transmission of traits), apply in all cases.
quote:
Yet when dealing with past and gone events the evidence becomes less.
So assumptions lose thier power and right to claim confidence.
So is it your assertion that dogs, humans, fish did not reproduce sexually and via DNA, transmit traits from parent to offspring 10,000 years ago? 5,000? Last year? At what point do you assert that the mechanisms observed in all organisms living (and for studies of ancient DNA up to 100,000 years back) magically did not operate and based on what evidence or assumption reconcilable with natural observation?
quote:
Assumptions so well demonstrated in the present (as reproduction) must demonstrate thier legitamacy for past/future events.
And they can't claim to be an observed, tested thing.
Except that in the one case, you accept the assumption that sexual reproduction results in offspring related genetically to their parents based on few observations yet deny that observed relatedeness among species could indicate shared common ancestry based on many more observations and multiple independent lines of evidence. According to your logic, you still would have to deny that you are in any way related to your parents and in fact, arose by spontaneous generation..of course, without evidence and contrary to all observations made thus far with regard to heredity and reproduction. But given, it was not an observed event, according to you, there is no reason to posit that you are related to your parents regardless of whatever indirect evidence from DNA to morphology supports your relatedenes. Since spontaneous generation has never been observed, I have to then believe you do not exist