So do all kittens grow up to be tigers? I mean WHY does even ThaT theory make it necessary that we all had the same mama? I mean, where did all these kitties and doggies come from? And the nocems? Cockroaches? How many types of dinosaurs were there? Did they all crack out of the same egg? There is no logic to this. None.
They know that there were more than one type of “man” roaming around this big ol’ place, and they wouldn’t even admit that for the longest time because it threw their whole cockamamy “link” theory to the four winds. Now that there is evidence that these two “comingled” they can’t just dismiss the possibility that if there were two, there were others. The small bones found at Carmel, for instance. A whole race they had no knowledge of.
WHY isn’t it possible that the Creation of HUMANS happened everywhere on this planet? Why do they diminish Creation by inserting idiocy into what they call science when they have been refuted time after time after time?
Hey, I’m at least halfway with ya, man, insofar as I think the evolutionists are more concerned with trying to fit the evidence to their theory rather than finding the truth.
Now, I think there is some logic to common descent, but only within species, or type, whatever you want to call it (since scientists have made a complete mockery of taxonomy). For example, you ask about cats and dogs. Well, for domesticated dogs and cats, we know where all the varieties came from, and it’s just do to selective breeding creating new stable breeds from the pre-existing genepool. We can also conclude common descent for all canines and felines, since they can generally crossbreed and create hybrids. I think most of the “species” that scientists identify are nothing more than breeds, or what might properly be called subspecies, which arose through the same mechanism, but which occurred due to nature rather than husbandry. However, by classifying as many groups of creatures as separate “species” rather than just breeds, the evolutionist attempt to fit the data to their expected pattern of extensive, fluid speciation.
When it comes to humans, the fact that we can all breed with each other, and with very few negative results from those crossings, shows that not only are we one proper species, but also that the breeds of humans (racial/ethnic groups) are more compatible, and so logically more uniform in genetics, than many groups of animals. For example, you won’t produce sterile offspring from hybridizing any human breeds together, while this happens frequently with more divergent breeds of animals.
So, in my opinion, humans must have a common origin, though it can’t have happened the way that evolutionists speculate. The simple mechanics of sexual reproduction require that there must have been at least two original humans from which we derive common descent. That would be statistically impossible under the proposed mechanism of evolution, if the actual nature of species is taken into account.