[betty boop]

In all the years I've been on these threads, I've only seen two evolution critics admit to accepting common descent.

But I don't have a problem "admitting" to "common descent." The problem is, common descent from what?

But I'm a "critic," not a "debunker" -- if you can draw that distinction, js1138.

[Coyoteman]

But I'm a "critic," not a "debunker" -- if you can draw that distinction, js1138.

Debunkers need evidence?

[js1138]

But I'm a "critic," not a "debunker" -- if you can draw that distinction, js1138.

I not only can, but often do.

As for your question, "from what," how would you propose solving the problem?

I have often compared biogenesis to the problem of how the pyramids were built. We don't "know" in any absolute sense, but only a handful suggest that the pyramids were the result of a miracle or were built by space aliens.

Rational way to attack the problem is to examine the tools we know were available and see if they were sufficient. By trying them out.

In the same way we can examine the chemistry on non-living things, and by trying, see if there is a path from non-life to life.

This is not a task for the impatient. Science is not for the impatient. Hundreds of years elapsed between Copernicus and Einstein, and we still have not completely solved the puzzle of gravity.