args

Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species.

We"re gonna need more words! Since I have assumed the burden of showing that all species do NOT share a single common ancestor, I will focus primarily on your rebuttals to my main points. You are trying very hard to prove LCA, and It is creating a much bigger debate than we have room for. Speciation: In short, a salt-water fish adapting to become a fresh-water fish does not in any way suggest that a fish can become a mammal. I understand this is a matter of perspective and interpretation, and leave this one to the readers to decide. Truthfully, many of the speciation events we"vie observed were harmful, not helpful to the species (natural selection?). Also, most organisms seek healthy mates that are of their own species, naturally. This is counterproductive to evolutionary theory based in speciation. "You have no reason to think that this adaptation would stop. After speciation events animals would continue to diverge and change. Minor changes necessarily lead to large changes over time." So how many times does a fish have to become another type of fish before they become a mammal, because those are the types of changes you propose in favor of evolution, and have yet to substantiate an actual special transition. The truth is, scientists started renaming creatures every time they changed colors or something. "The Gal"pagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Gal"pagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Gal"pagos birds were all species of finches." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... "Oh look, the finches are all pretty now like a bowl of fruit loops." --Whether or not there was justification for reclassifying the other finches as a different "species" is one thing we could debate, but they are still finches and not anything else. Does not explain at all how one species can become an entirely different species, which is what has to have happened to go from bacteria to our LCA to the world we live in now. The finches can change colors over and over and won"t change into hawks even, let alone a reptile or fish or human. Call me when you see a finch grow teeth and opposable thumbs" "I"ll concede that carbon dating is only useful for short term dating but there are many dating methods. They are used often together to converge on one result. I"ll elaborate on the age of the earth next round." Fair enough. Don"t forget my rebuttals from last round! It is a bit humerous to see you quoting AIG, but it is a relevant article so I won"t hound you. However, from the same people that take Genesis literally, I generally do not rely upon my information. That said, I guess I should respond to them too: "The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based." First of all, they (the "non-creationists") would need to have been WAY off to go from 50" to "". Secondly, if they started doing these tests in"1980, then that means they have only observed for 34 years --not exactly a definitive examination with regards to the timespan of the universe by any account. "You have in no way established the likelihood of a global flood or how this is relevant." Sorry, I didn"t think I had to at this point. "The stories go on and on, and scholars have noted similarities among accounts. While studying more than 200 flood myths, Creationist author James Perloff observed that a global flood was mentioned in 95 percent of the stories, people were saved in a boat in 70 percent and in 57 percent, the survivors found respite on a mountain" -- http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Many evolutionists fight this idea, because it creates issues for them if accepted. Rapid burial leading to mass fossilizations and even extinctions in some cases. This explains many questions geologists are trying to answer right now, with regards to the breaking up of the continents and fossils being found on top of a mountain or half-way around the world from where they should be. Otherwise, the fossil record makes little sense, because creatures die and decompose or are eaten under normal circumstances. "According to the traditional evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, man appears late ('late' is defined as in the upper strata of the geologic column) while trilobites and dinosaurs, appearing lower in the geologic column, died out many millions of years ago. Yet the coelacanth obviously still alive and well-appears nowhere in the fossil record for the last 70 million years. Fossil "men" have been discovered in strata in which nothing close to human is supposed to have existed. Other species thought to have been long-ago ancestors of the human race have been dated to quite recent years, much to the perplexity of scientists. For example, remains of Homo erectus-supposedly an evolutionary ancestor of modern man that lived 1.6 to .4 million years ago-have been found in Australia that have been dated to only a few hundred to a few thousand years ago. Although according to the evolutionary timetable the species is said to have died out several hundred thousand years ago, the remains of at least 62 individuals have been dated as less than 12,000 years old." -- http://www.ucgpdx.org... "That civilization culture and a written language took a long time to evolve does not discredit evolution." We base much of what we know about history on written record. Here you are telling me we can accurately guess things that happened 150 million years ago, but ignoring that recorded history ends about 10,000 years ago, and human civilization probably only existed for 10-20 thousand years prior to that, (using mathematical principles and the rate at which we multiply and consume). "There are many creatures that have survived in various forms since the time of dinosaurs so even if you could demonstrate their recent existence it wouldn"t really matter." "Again, I don"t think you fully read my statement. My point was not that dinosaurs may still be alive, my point was they were supposed to go extinct before we got here, and all signs show that we actually lived amongst them." "The eye is an excellent example of how complex features arose over time from simpler versions. If you can create a case that the eye is irreducibly complex I will respond." I did, and now it seems as if you are being dismissive, as I predicted. "You misunderstand evolution. Giraffes have the longest necks and birds fly the best. All animals have unique methods of survival. " Unique indeed, thanks for making my point. "Self destruction is an example of random failure not design." Free will distinguishes us from all other species, so my point was against common descent. This is not a debate on creationism. "No. Humans, other Apes and all modern primates share a common ancestor. Each species has evolved in different ways responding to different selection pressures. Ancient monkeys were very different from modern primates." Now you are just repeating yourself. I can tell you are smart, but at least fully read my arguments and think about them before you reply. It seems like you are used to having this debate in a certain fashion using certain lines of reasoning. I have already addressed your other points, except: "There are three basic building blocks for every cell, DNA, RNA and proteins, and they are found in all forms of life. This links all forms of life"" --I do not deny this, but rather our claimed understanding of how DNA and genetics fully work. To say all life shares DNA is like saying all life is alive. In Nascar, most of the cars are one of four models, with mostly the same engines under the hood. The customizations they are allowed are very minimal, but combined with the driver make a world of difference, even if it"s only a 1.2% difference in lap times. "there could just as easily have been different building blocks for all forms of life" An interesting theory I would be interested in studying, but this isn"t the case and it is speculative at best.