Oh, I've heard it said many times. But I keep hearing this thing about the "common ancestry" of all living things, which, if it were something less than a fairy tale would explain a.) how the first living cell come about, and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?
Um, no. The origin of life has always been outside of the theory of evolution. Is color theory unacceptable because it doesn't explain the origin of life?
... and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Study the theory itself (and not a cartoon version of it), and you'll find out. You'll find out what scientists believe we can explain, and what we currently have no explanation for. Science admits these things.
... with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Because there's no way to test for "any agent capable of intelligence and/or design." We've been over this, too.
Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?
I'm not and don't call me "shirley." ;>)
Actually there is no consensus on this. Now that there is evidence that things like eyes and lungs have evolved more than once, there is speculation that life (there is no consensus over whether the discussion should start with replicating molecules, viruses or cells) may have appeared several times or as much as 1,000,000's of times all over the universe, including in space. It seems like most of the folks arguing common ancestry now are the creationists and ID'ers.
It will be fun to tune in 100 or 200 years from now to see where this discussion has gone.