Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.

[One Brow]

"A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" by Douglas L. Theobald published in Nature (2010). According to this paper using multiple forms of statistical analysis life almost certainly originated from one source and evolved from there.

I have not read the paper. I will briefly point out that life having started more than once on earth is compatible with universal common ancestry.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

I have not read the paper. I will briefly point out that life having started more than once on earth is compatible with universal common ancestry.

If you had any sort of evidence for that it would be groundbreaking. I suggest you write a paper on it and if what you say is true then it would get published in Nature or Science. The evidence available supports the idea that life came once and only once.

 

[One Brow]

If you had any sort of evidence for that it would be groundbreaking.

Why? If life started more than once, it would have been under very similar conditions a similar time. How would we tell the difference?

 

[colton]

I don't get why you think it is some kind of game. I was explaining that it seems as though you agree more with ID scientists than Darwinists.

I don't see any randomness in the make up of life, so why would I try to distinguish a difference. It is Darwinists who insist on accidental mutations leading to new attributes and new species, not me.

Oh, sorry. I thought you had some sort of agenda.

But no, my view doesn't really resemble anything from the Intelligent Design camp. Or rather, the *words* "intelligent design" may well describe my view, but the *baggage* of everything else that's associated with ID does not at all. For example, if you look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design, I'm much more likely to agree with things found in the "Criticism" section of the page than in things found in the the "Movement" section.