So, you have no problem with humans, chimps and gorillas sharing a common ancestor because they all belong to the hominidae/mammal taxonomy. What about the “life on earth” taxonomy which includes all bacteria, arche, eukaryotes and viruses?
Any two organisms will be related at some level of the hierarchy, that is the effect of common descent and if part of the evidence we have for common descent.
On that basis we can say humans are “descended” from fruit flies or bananas if we go back far enough. Unfortunately 4 billion years isn’t far enough for mutation to do its work Haldane’s Dilemma again. The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs and most organisms spent their time in stasis rather than mutating.
I have no problem that they share similar lego chemical blocks of DNA. However, it is another matter to say one descended from another merely because they share similar building blocks of material. That is simply a fallacious argument. I can theorize that an intelligent being creating various species would find it more efficient to use the same lego blocks and vary it slightly for each family/kingdom/genus. It is an equally valid theory. At the top the differentiation being the most distinct and varying less and less as we get down into the sub groups, inter group, intragroups.
To claim x organism mutated to y organism, one needs evidence, not fossils. Fossils only tell you such and such an organism lived approx X years ago. That’s all you can deduce. Mutation is not the same as survival of the fittest as my example of DNA resistant insect shows. There may be several variants of hominids and only the strongest/fortunate survive without need to call on the mutation card.
Common descent is only theory. Not proven by any means. The so call tree of life is no tree as latest research reveals. More like a bush I was told. Not sure of the implications though.
The information (name removed by moderator)ut comes from the environment.
That is a most ridiculous extrapolation when the environment itself does not contain the information. Look around you. Where/who/how does the environment tells the chemical soup to make a living self replicating bacteria? You have stop pulling the Nature “joker” card to explain things. Just imagine the immense difficulty of designing a) a cell b) a living cell c) a living replicating cell
purely from natural means with the clock ticking away. Without a plausible testable explanation, it is just not science.
There is a classic piece from a creationist poster on this very subject:
I am not really a 6-day creationist guy myself. So I only read the more logical sciency stuff off them. There are some good stuff and a lot more convenient for me rather than to run all over the place to consolidate various sources of information. I sanity check their writings. I just want to point out that the evidence does not point to dumb nature. Origin of Lifers must look elsewhere. Trying to get our children to subscribe to a non-feasible solution is immoral and divert their energies down the wrong path. If atheists want to avoid having God in their equations, call it by some other name, X factor or something like that. At least you can maintain your dignity and integrity. It is ok to have unknowns. Cosmologists already named dark matter/energy/stuff which they can’t verify nor experiment with.
