[johnnyb_61820]

"Maybe a divine agent zap-poofed the first life forms into existence. How would this falsify common descent?"

I didn't say it falsified it. I said that the proofs for common descent required a specific view of the origin of life. Those who want to separate the issues of evolution and origin of life cannot really do so, because the arguments _for_ common descent are based on a specific view.

Please show me a proof of common descent that doesn't require a specific view of the origin of life, and I'll retract my claim.

"several appeals to argument from incredulity"

Really? Point it out.

[Dimensio]

I didn't say it falsified it. I said that the proofs for common descent required a specific view of the origin of life. Those who want to separate the issues of evolution and origin of life cannot really do so, because the arguments _for_ common descent are based on a specific view.

So a specific view of the origin of life is required for evolution. But demonstrating that another method was the actual cause of the origin of life doesn't falsify evolution. Even though evolution requires a different origin of life than the one demonstrated.

Are you just trying to escape the fact that I've demolished your original lie that common descent requires a specific view of the origin of life, or do you actually believe those two inherently contradictory statements?

[Dimensio]

Really? Point it out.

This article is primarily an appeal to incredulity to explain why abiogenesis is "unlikely".

I will also restate that neither article actually demonstrate that the origin of life is or has ever been a part of the theory of evolution, nor do they show that the theory or evolution requires that life originally came about through any specific measure. The best that they do is point out that evolution starts with a single population of life forms that diverge into the species that we see today, however even given that assumption it says nothing about just how those life forms came to exist in the first place. One of the articles also dishonestly claims that diversity of species from common ancestry is nothing but an unfounded assumption. You should know better than that, given the extremely long posts from Ichneumon explaining exactly the physical observations that lead so many biologists consider common descent a well-accepted premise.