The Privileged Planet

[Jose Fly]

And species is the property that property in all things that produces species?

No, but you knew that already.

Also, if we see the evolution of a new species that is physically unable to breed with its parent species, would that be the observed evolution of a new "kind"?

 

[6days]

No, but you knew that already.

Also, if we see the evolution of a new species that is physically unable to breed with its parent species, would that be the observed evolution of a new "kind"?

Already been answered for you Jose.... many times... several threads, including this one.

 

[6days]

... how illogical it is to make claims based on undefined terms ...

You must be referring to the word 'species' because the word 'kind' was defined for you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Already been answered for you Jose.... many times... several threads, including this one.

Sorta, but you just posted something from AiG that said, "a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind".

Is that true or not?

You must be referring to the word 'species' because the word 'kind' was defined for you.

I remember Stripe saying a "kind" is populations that share a common ancestry, but when I asked how we determine what does and doesn't share a common ancestry, he said he didn't know. So that's wasn't really helpful.

Then as we see above, you posted something from AiG suggesting that a "kind" is a population that can interbreed. But you seem to be backing away from that too.

So in the interest of clarity and understanding, could you state what a "kind" is? Thanks.

 

[6days]

Sorta, but you just posted something from AiG that said, "a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind".
Is that true or not?

Yes...along with the following sentence..."It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”

I remember Stripe saying a "kind" is populations that share a common ancestry, but when I asked how we determine what does and doesn't share a common ancestry, he said he didn't know. So that's wasn't really helpful.

But you aren't wanting "helpful definitions, Jose. You are only wanting to argue.

Then as we see above, you posted something from AiG suggesting that a "kind" is a population that can interbreed. But you seem to be backing away from that too.

I agree fully with Purdom's statement. I don't agree with how you misrepresent what she said.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes...along with the following sentence..."It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”

And what does that mean exactly? Is reproductive isolation a test for "kinds" or not?

But you aren't wanting "helpful definitions, Jose. You are only wanting to argue.

Maybe if one of you could provide an actual helpful definition, things wouldn't seem so argumentative. :think:

I agree fully with Purdom's statement. I don't agree with how you misrepresent what she said.

How did I misrepresent what she said? Since you posted the quote, I've been asking questions about it.

 

[6days]

Maybe if one of you could provide an actual helpful definition, things wouldn't seem so argumentative.

Ha.... Helpful for what? Why are you so interested in the original kinds God created?
I think a better thing for you to be worried about is providing a definition to the word 'species' that works in all cases.

Genesis 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ha.... Helpful for what? Why are you so interested in the original kinds God created?

So you're not going to answer, are you? Funny how for a term you keep claiming you've defined, when I ask for that definition you spend a lot more time dodging the question than it would take to just post the definition.

This is why creationists are the laughingstocks of the internet.

I think a better thing for you to be worried about is providing a definition to the word 'species' that works in all cases.

Why does it have to work in all cases? Can you give me a definition of the word "run" that works in all cases?

 

[Right Divider]

So yesterday you complained about taxonomic classification being "NOT defined based on empirical evidence ALONE", but today you're complaining about the possibility of taxonomic classification being based on empirical evidence alone?

Gee, it's almost like you're just reflexively saying whatever you think works at that given moment, rather than defending an actual well-thought-out, consistent position.

Care to try again? Empirically, why should humans be in a different genus than chimps and bonobos?

You are absolutely correct, I misspoke there (an accident). I have since corrected it to say what I meant. I used the word EMPIRICAL when I meant MATERIAL.

You think that the only way that we can know anything about plants and animals is by the molecules of which they consist. There are many other things that we can observe besides just those. But as an atheistic materialist, you are stuck with your matter and energy explanation. I guess that even the thoughts in your head are all just cosmic accidents since that is how your world-view explains our existence.

People ask me all the time why I'm here. Well, this is a very good illustration of my reason. Yesterday, in order to try and get you to appreciate how illogical it is to make claims based on undefined terms ("kinds"), I made up my own term ("kleptch"), made some arguments against creationism based on kleptch, and hoped that you would catch on. But you never did and eventually I had to just explain it to you.

Then today, you define "kind" in a completely circular manner ("The kinds are the plants and animals that reproduce their kind"), so I try and get you to understand how illogical that is by giving you an equally circular definition of kleptch. But do you get it? Nope.

I guess that you still don't realize that your definition of species (and for that matter, all of the other levels of taxonomy) is of the very same nature. They are defined by humans for the purpose of categorization. They do NOT exist in the actual DATA themselves.

I'm sure you don't appreciate it, but I find that absolutely hilarious and entertaining. My only reservation is that maybe you're just not that bright and I'm actually making fun of someone who's only doing the best they can.

But anyways, do you now understand how circular definitions are meaningless?

It is not a circular definition. It is perfectly obvious to anyone that animals ALL reproduce AFTER THEIR KIND (just like the Bible says).

Your problem is that you think that at some time in the distant (and observable) past, animals started turning into OTHER KINDS of animals.

You use your supposedly amazing understanding of their molecules to make this determination. And yet various materialists have greatly differing views of their "tree of life" (all based on the SAME data) and each one has solid "science" to back up their claims. Never for a moment does each one consider that the WHOLE thing is a pile of poop. They are convinced from the start that life started by accident and has "progressed" up Mount Improbable and no evidence to the contrary will get in their way.

Sure it is. I've even shown you one of the successful results of it. All you could muster in response is "Um....maybe God just made it that way".

No, indeed you have not.

What valid information do you think you've provided?

You need to prove your point first. How did genetic information come into existence in the first place? Oh, that's right, I can't define it for you and YOU have failed to define it was well. And yet we BOTH know that it exists.

Everything you've seen......where? Do you read scientific journals? Go to conferences on evolutionary biology? Have you even taken some college courses in evolutionary biology?

Credentials are everything to folks like yourself. Why don't you list yours? I'm sure that we will all be very impressed.

Truth is NOT determined by credentials, personalities or fairy stories like ToE.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are absolutely correct, I misspoke there (an accident). I have since corrected it to say what I meant. I used the word EMPIRICAL when I meant MATERIAL.

Ok then.

You think that the only way that we can know anything about plants and animals is by the molecules of which they consist. There are many other things that we can observe besides just those. But as an atheistic materialist, you are stuck with your matter and energy explanation. I guess that even the thoughts in your head are all just cosmic accidents since that is how your world-view explains our existence.

If you have a superior way of classifying organisms, then let's see it.

I guess that you still don't realize that your definition of species (and for that matter, all of the other levels of taxonomy) is of the very same nature. They are defined by humans for the purpose of categorization. They do NOT exist in the actual DATA themselves.

No, the definition of species is not circular.

It is not a circular definition.

Um....yes it is.

Circular definition: A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition​

Your definition of "kinds" is exactly that ("The kinds are the plants and animals that reproduce their kind").

No, indeed you have not.

Man but creationists are odd. I most certainly did show you an example of how evolutionary common descent has produced useful results.

You need to prove your point first. How did genetic information come into existence in the first place?

Right after you explain the existence of kleptch.

Oh, that's right, I can't define it for you and YOU have failed to define it was well. And yet we BOTH know that it exists.

Yeah, imagine that. Before we can say anything one way or the other about amounts of "genetic information", we first have to know what "genetic information" is and how to measure it. Crazy, huh?

Credentials are everything to folks like yourself. Why don't you list yours? I'm sure that we will all be very impressed.

Truth is NOT determined by credentials, personalities or fairy stories like ToE.

I didn't ask for your credentials; I asked what you've studied from evolutionary biology. Is the reason you won't answer because the truth is, you've not studied it at all? :think:

 

[Right Divider]

Ok then.

If you have a superior way of classifying organisms, then let's see it.

I didn't claim to have a "superior way". But this is a very nice ATTEMPT on your part to distract from the original issue. These classifications are NOT inherent in the DATA. They are imposed UPON the data. But thanks for playing.

No, the definition of species is not circular.

Um....yes it is.

Circular definition: A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition​

Your definition of "kinds" is exactly that ("The kinds are the plants and animals that reproduce their kind").

Ok Mr. Pedantic.

KIND: Animals that could reproduce with each other, but may have lost this ability due to common descent with modification.

There you go. No circles, squares or triangles.

Man but creationists are odd. I most certainly did show you an example of how evolutionary common descent has produced useful results.

Indeed 96% similarity (based on the methods that they chose to use) is still 10's of MILLIONS of differences.

Right after you explain the existence of kleptch.

So you have NO idea where genetic information comes from. I thought so. DNA is CODED information. It's really not that hard. Especially for a smart guy like yourself.

Yeah, imagine that. Before we can say anything one way or the other about amounts of "genetic information", we first have to know what "genetic information" is and how to measure it. Crazy, huh?

Do you think that DNA contains vast amount of information or not? Go ahead, you can tell us.

I guess that your "96%" is just a completely bogus idea, since we don't know what genetic information is.

I didn't ask for your credentials; I asked what you've studied from evolutionary biology. Is the reason you won't answer because the truth is, you've not studied it at all? :think:

You are wrong, as usual.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't claim to have a "superior way".

Then the current system stands.

These classifications are NOT inherent in the DATA. They are imposed UPON the data.

How do you know? Just how much have you studied taxonomy?

KIND: Animals that could reproduce with each other, but may have lost this ability due to common descent with modification.

There you go. No circles, squares or triangles.

So a "kind" is a group of organisms that may, or may not, be able to reproduce with each other? How is that at all helpful?

Indeed 96% similarity (based on the methods that they chose to use) is still 10's of MILLIONS of differences.

Oh my goodness. You didn't even understand what that paper was about, did you? (Hint: the 96% figure wasn't about similarity)

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't with the science, but is with your understanding of it?

So you have NO idea where genetic information comes from.

That's pretty hard to say, given that no one can say what "genetic information" even is.

Do you think that DNA contains vast amount of information or not? Go ahead, you can tell us.

Yes it does. Of course there are different ways we can measure it, e.g., all nucleotide sequences, only functional nucleotide sequences, only sequences that are transcribed, etc.

And that's the real issue here. The reason creationists won't give a clear definition of "genetic information" is because they know as soon as they do, people like me will provide multiple examples of the observed evolution of new genetic information. No matter how you define it, it's trivially easy to see it increase.

So in their standard dishonest way, creationists avoid this problem by never defining the term, while still saying it can't increase. It's a lot like how they treat "transitional fossils" in the hominids. They'll never tell you what one would be, but instead just wait until new specimens are discovered and declare after-the-fact "That's not one".

I guess that your "96%" is just a completely bogus idea, since we don't know what genetic information is.

Given that you didn't even understand what the 96% figure meant....well, let's just say this is pretty darned funny. :chuckle:

You are wrong, as usual.

Ok then, what have you studied about evolutionary biology?

 

[Right Divider]

Then the current system stands.

I never said that there was anything wrong with it.

How do you know? Just how much have you studied taxonomy?

You think that everyone has to be an expert on everything to discuss anything?

So a "kind" is a group of organisms that may, or may not, be able to reproduce with each other? How is that at all helpful?

That is correct. I've noticed that you still haven't even remotely addressed the fact that YOUR "theory" is that ALL life is descended from a SINGLE KIND.

Oh my goodness. You didn't even understand what that paper was about, did you? (Hint: the 96% figure wasn't about similarity)

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't with the science, but is with your understanding of it?

Indeed I missed the point there. But I will AGAIN point out that regardless of the similarities, that does NOT IPSO FACTO point to common descent from a SINGLE source. This FACT of similarities is JUST as easily explained by a COMMON CREATOR. Since a SINGLE intelligent BEING created ALL life on earth, I would certainly expect that there would be a GREAT deal of similarity in HIS DESIGN.

That's pretty hard to say, given that no one can say what "genetic information" even is.

DNA is a CODED language that defines LIFE. It has all the features a LANGUAGE.

Yes it does. Of course there are different ways we can measure it, e.g., all nucleotide sequences, only functional nucleotide sequences, only sequences that are transcribed, etc.

And that's the real issue here. The reason creationists won't give a clear definition of "genetic information" is because they know as soon as they do, people like me will provide multiple examples of the observed evolution of new genetic information. No matter how you define it, it's trivially easy to see it increase.

Sure it is. As I've said before (and you very conveniently ignored) WHERE does the ORIGINAL INFORMATION come from?

Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, the creation paradigm is TOTALLY compatible with descent with modification. YOUR "theory" has NO explanation for the ORIGINAL INFORMATION (regardless of how YOU want it defined).

So in their standard dishonest way, creationists avoid this problem by never defining the term, while still saying it can't increase. It's a lot like how they treat "transitional fossils" in the hominids. They'll never tell you what one would be, but instead just wait until new specimens are discovered and declare after-the-fact "That's not one".

Transitional fossils may demonstrate descent with modification. That STILL does not account for the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Given that you didn't even understand what the 96% figure meant....well, let's just say this is pretty darned funny. :chuckle:

Indeed I glossed over that tactic of yours and STILL am waiting for your "theory" on the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Similarities point to a COMMON DESIGNER and not a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR.

Ok then, what have you studied about evolutionary biology?

I have studied the ORIGIN OF LIFE that you will continue to ignore.

P.S. Again I will mention that descent with modification is FULLY compatible with the creation paradigm. If that's all that you mean by "evolution", then we are fully in agreement. Your real problem is the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

 

[Jose Fly]

You think that everyone has to be an expert on everything to discuss anything?

I didn't say that. I just asked what you've studied in taxonomy. Why is it every time I ask what you've studied, you refuse to answer?

That is correct.

Then it's a useless definition.

I've noticed that you still haven't even remotely addressed the fact that YOUR "theory" is that ALL life is descended from a SINGLE KIND.

No, I've never seen any mention of "a single kind" in any scientific papers. Have you?

But I will AGAIN point out that regardless of the similarities, that does NOT IPSO FACTO point to common descent from a SINGLE source.

The results I posted are supporting evidence for the common evolutionary ancestry of humans, flies, worms, fish, etc.

This FACT of similarities is JUST as easily explained by a COMMON CREATOR.

Everything is "easily explained by a common creator". No matter what we find, all you have to do is assert after-the-fact "God made it that way". I'll demonstrate...

I would certainly expect that there would be a GREAT deal of similarity in HIS DESIGN.

Does that mean dissimilarity is evidence against "common design? The fact that bats fly via dissimilar anatomy than birds is evidence against "common design"? The fact that whales, dolphins, and porpoises live and breath differently in marine environments than sharks is evidence against "common design"?

Sure it is.

If you agree that evolution can increase "genetic information", perhaps you should let your fellow creationists at ToL know. They seem to be under the impression that it can't happen.

As I've said before (and you very conveniently ignored) WHERE does the ORIGINAL INFORMATION come from?

Currently, there is no complete explanation for the origin of the first life forms. There are a handful of hypotheses, some pretty well supported, but no overall, complete theory.

Transitional fossils may demonstrate descent with modification.

So you have no issue with transitional fossils in the hominid line?

Similarities point to a COMMON DESIGNER and not a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR.

The moon is made of cheese.

I have studied the ORIGIN OF LIFE that you will continue to ignore.

You have? What exactly have you studied? What do you think about the recent discovery that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived from ​hydrogen cyanide?

P.S. Again I will mention that descent with modification is FULLY compatible with the creation paradigm. If that's all that you mean by "evolution", then we are fully in agreement.

So you have no problem with all life on earth sharing a common evolutionary ancestry?

Your real problem is the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

It is a currently unsolved question. Therefore.........?

 

[Right Divider]

I didn't say that. I just asked what you've studied in taxonomy. Why is it every time I ask what you've studied, you refuse to answer?

Because it doesn't matter.

Then it's a useless definition.

That reminds me of the useless definition called "The General Theory of Evolution".

No, I've never seen any mention of "a single kind" in any scientific papers. Have you?

I guess you're not smart enough to equate "a single kind" with "a single common ancestor".

The results I posted are supporting evidence for the common evolutionary ancestry of humans, flies, worms, fish, etc.

You have a problem with understanding that you need more than this to PROVE that these all share a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR.
Once AGAIN, these similarities are JUST as much proof of a COMMON DESIGNER.

Everything is "easily explained by a common creator". No matter what we find, all you have to do is assert after-the-fact "God made it that way". I'll demonstrate...

Please feel free to prove that similarity of genetics is ONLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY explained by a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR (that just came to LIFE where there was NO LIFE before). Please make sure that you use "random chance" somewhere in your explanation.

Does that mean dissimilarity is evidence against "common design? The fact that bats fly via dissimilar anatomy than birds is evidence against "common design"? The fact that whales, dolphins, and porpoises live and breath differently in marine environments than sharks is evidence against "common design"?

Your arbitrary ideas of how God should have done it does not limit Him in any way. I guess that in your feeble mind, God should have only created a SINGLE flying creature, a SINGLE swimming creature, a SINGLE four legged creature, etc. etc. etc.

If you agree that evolution can increase "genetic information", perhaps you should let your fellow creationists at ToL know. They seem to be under the impression that it can't happen.

I did NOT say that there is any INCREASE of information. All of the information was CREATED in the beginning. All we see now is a running down. Mutations degrade the information, not "improve" or "enhance" it.

Currently, there is no complete explanation for the origin of the first life forms. There are a handful of hypotheses, some pretty well supported, but no overall, complete theory.

Well what are you waiting for? Isn't the "General Theory of Evolution" the answer to all of life's questions?

So you think that multiple life FORMS came into existence simultaneously? I'd like to hear more about this theory!

So you have no issue with transitional fossils in the hominid line?

I don't think any of the actual transitional fossils prove that my ancestors were anything but human. Maybe yours were apes.

The moon is made of cheese.

I guess that you think that you are either smart or funny. You're neither.

You have? What exactly have you studied? What do you think about the recent discovery that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived from ​hydrogen cyanide?

Gen 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
​

This is JUST as scientific as your total lack of explanation.

So you have no problem with all life on earth sharing a common evolutionary ancestry?

From the original KINDS that God created, sure!

It is a currently unsolved question. Therefore.........?

Unsolved for someone, such as yourself, that rejects the truth.

Therefore, this is where we stand. Two choices, with creation by God being the most reasonable.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because it doesn't matter.

Why do you think courts call expert witnesses to testify on scientific matters, rather than random people off the street?

I guess you're not smart enough to equate "a single kind" with "a single common ancestor".

Since "kind" has no meaning, "a single kind" is equally meaningless.

You have a problem with understanding that you need more than this to PROVE that these all share a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR.

Do you agree though that the SIFTER results are supportive of universal common ancestry?

Once AGAIN, these similarities are JUST as much proof of a COMMON DESIGNER.

The moon is made of cheese.

Please feel free to prove that similarity of genetics is ONLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY explained by a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR (that just came to LIFE where there was NO LIFE before). Please make sure that you use "random chance" somewhere in your explanation.

Given that we directly observe homology arising as a result of evolutionary common ancestry, why is it unreasonable to conclude the same about the past?

Your arbitrary ideas of how God should have done it does not limit Him in any way. I guess that in your feeble mind, God should have only created a SINGLE flying creature, a SINGLE swimming creature, a SINGLE four legged creature, etc. etc. etc.

Thank you for illustrating my point. "God made it that way" is nothing more than an unsupported post hoc assertion.

I did NOT say that there is any INCREASE of information. All of the information was CREATED in the beginning. All we see now is a running down. Mutations degrade the information, not "improve" or "enhance" it.

How can you say that if you don't even know what "genetic information" is, let alone how to measure it?

Well what are you waiting for? Isn't the "General Theory of Evolution" the answer to all of life's questions?

Don't be stupid.

So you think that multiple life FORMS came into existence simultaneously? I'd like to hear more about this theory!

No. All you're doing here is showing that you don't even understand the very subject you're arguing against.

I don't think any of the actual transitional fossils prove that my ancestors were anything but human. Maybe yours were apes.

If humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record (e.g., what anatomical features in transitional forms, and what temporal patterns)?

Gen 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
​

This is JUST as scientific as your total lack of explanation.

The moon is made of cheese.

From the original KINDS that God created, sure!

And how does that explain kleptch?

Therefore, this is where we stand. Two choices, with creation by God being the most reasonable.

The moon is made of cheese.

 

[Right Divider]

Why do you think courts call expert witnesses to testify on scientific matters, rather than random people off the street?

1) We are not in court
2) Experts are NOT always correct, even in their own "field of expertise" (particularly in regards to the ORIGIN OF LIFE).

Since "kind" has no meaning, "a single kind" is equally meaningless.

Back to your RED HERRING again, I see.

I said "a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR". Does this not satisfy your requirements?

Do you agree though that the SIFTER results are supportive of universal common ancestry?

No, I do not. UNIVERSAL common ancestry from a SINGLE ANCESTOR is simply a figment of your vivid imagination.

The moon is made of cheese.

That's your kind of "science" for sure.

Given that we directly observe homology arising as a result of evolutionary common ancestry, why is it unreasonable to conclude the same about the past?

Because you extrapolate well beyond the actual evidence. What we see in the world around us are various types of animals that branch into smaller groups. By NO means does this allow us to ASSUME that this all started from a SINGLE animal (which, itself, came into existence where there were previously NONE).

Thank you for illustrating my point. "God made it that way" is nothing more than an unsupported post hoc assertion.

As is YOUR claim that it all just happened by accident. I guess that you really are too dumb to see that.

How can you say that if you don't even know what "genetic information" is, let alone how to measure it?

More red herrings, very tasty.

Don't be stupid.

I guess that you're not a TRUE atheistic evolutionist.

No. All you're doing here is showing that you don't even understand the very subject you're arguing against.

Please feel free to inform us all what this "theory" of yours entails. I have been studying the origins debate for many years and find the atheistic origin story to be sadly lacking.

If humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, what do you think we should expect to find in the fossil record (e.g., what anatomical features in transitional forms, and what temporal patterns)?

I don't think that fossils provides the kind of information necessary to adequately document the history of life on earth.

The moon is made of cheese.

Please feel free to give us YOUR "scientific" explanation of the existence of all things. That would be fun.

And how does that explain kleptch?

Your "kleptch" is a lot like your explanation of all things. Completely missing.

The moon is made of cheese.

That does seem to me your most intelligent answer with regards to origins. Well done!

 

[exminister]

RD - you are saying Kinds can breed except when there is descent with modifications. Do you have scriptural support of the latter?

Jose- you say genetic information can increase. How? Can you explain or reference a document? Do you think such information can also degrade?

 

[Right Divider]

RD - you are saying Kinds can breed except when there is descent with modifications. Do you have scriptural support of the latter?

I don't need scriptural support for something that we can actually observe and verify in the physical world.

 

[Jose Fly]

1) We are not in court
2) Experts are NOT always correct, even in their own "field of expertise" (particularly in regards to the ORIGIN OF LIFE).

You didn't answer the question. Why do courts call expert witnesses to testify on scientific matters, rather than random people off the street?

Back to your RED HERRING again, I see.

And you're back to saying that asking you to define your terms is a "red herring".

I said "a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR". Does this not satisfy your requirements?

You asked me to equate single common ancestor with "single kind". How can I do that when you refuse to say what a "kind" is?

No, I do not. UNIVERSAL common ancestry from a SINGLE ANCESTOR is simply a figment of your vivid imagination.

Why not? Did you even read the paper?

That's your kind of "science" for sure.

It constantly amazes me how when your own behavior is reflected back at you, you are completely oblivious to it.

Because you extrapolate well beyond the actual evidence.

How do you know? You can't even say what you've studied in evolutionary biology, so how in the world can you say anything at all about it?

What we see in the world around us are various types of animals that branch into smaller groups.

What do you mean "smaller groups"?

By NO means does this allow us to ASSUME that this all started from a SINGLE animal (which, itself, came into existence where there were previously NONE).

I agree. If that's all there was to universal common ancestry, it would indeed be a mere assumption. Fortunately, that's not the case.

Please feel free to inform us all what this "theory" of yours entails.

You mean you don't know?

I have been studying the origins debate for many years and find the atheistic origin story to be sadly lacking.

What have you studied?

I don't think that fossils provides the kind of information necessary to adequately document the history of life on earth.

Why not?

Please feel free to give us YOUR "scientific" explanation of the existence of all things. That would be fun.

I don't have a "scientific explanation of all things". If anyone did, science would be finished. Why in the world would you think that's the case?

Your "kleptch" is a lot like your explanation of all things. Completely missing.

As are "kinds" and "genetic information".