[Tailgunner Joe]

You are the one who is wrong. Without universal common ancestry the entire theory of evolution falls apart. If all species are not descended from one common ancestor then why would we assume that any species are? When you take away the false premise of this assumption all the rest of the assumptions of the theory of evolution fall away as well. The evidence shows that life changes and adapts, but it does not show that one species evolves into another species.

[longtermmemmory]

then no farmer could ever have bread a prize bull.

the modern banana would not exist.

corn would not be that long yellow ear but a short stubby miscolored earthtone.

Dog shows would not allow new breeds.

I find it interesting that the religious arguments are entirely based on the conclusion that no science can exist before god. While the science does not require the absence of god.

[allmendream]

Wrong. Evolution could easily happen and be happening if life arose independently more than once and descended along two independent lines. The evidence doesn't suggest it did, but if it did, evolution is in no way dependent upon all life sharing common ancestry.

Evolution is inevitable in any living system that uses DNA as its genetic material.

We have observed speciation. One species can evolve into different species and it has been observed in the lab and in nature.

If you don't accept speciation - how did every single terrestrial species fit on the Ark? Don't most creationists think that one rodent “kind” could give rise to all contemporaneous rodent species?