Posted: Feb 25, 2014 4:48 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
questioner121 wrote:
ADParker wrote:
The evidence for common ancestry is based on observations of species breeding and speciating etc.,
of "traits",
of ring species demonstrating how one gene-pool can 'naturally' split into two,
of genetic comparisons (the same ones that are used to identify suspects/victims and familial relationships like parentage - because it can be used to that level of precision),
of geological and temporal dispersal of living and fossilized organism,
Endogenous retroviruses (where they are placed etc.),
etc. etc...

And all of it fits together so beautifully into the "universal common ancestor " model that it would be just be perverse for someone to understand that evidence and still believe it otherwise
If it isn't true then it looks like something has tried extremely hard to make it look true. :lol:

Here is where you're missing the important point. The evidence for common ancestry is missing observations of one species evolving into another entirely different (for example primate to human or theropod to bird) one via reproduction.

As I've already presented you with a link to documented and observed instances of speciation, this is not just false, but a blatant lie.