Just because many biologists think it is "compelling" (meaning that I'm "supposed" to believe it) evidence doesn't show that all organisms share a single common ancestor.
"organism that shares no genetic history with any other organism on Earth"
That's not what we are discussing.
There's a problem with the single common ancestor idea. Life is found all over the earth, from the ocean floors to very deep underground. How did life spread from a single location to all these locations? Isn't that just a bit iffy?
And what precludes life forming multiple times in a similar way?
So there's similarities in DNA. On what basis then is the 'conclusion' that there was a single common ancestor? What is the logical reasoning leading up to this conclusion? And don't say, go research it, no, you answer the question.
You have a good point there. The fact that biologists believe the evidence is not evidence in itself. However, if you choose to doubt them, it is on you to learn enough about the subject to understand the evidence to judge for yourself.
Personally, I am so ignorant on the subject that I'm not qualified to scrub beakers for some of these guys, let alone second guess them. But I've done enough research to learn that even though I don't fully understand the details, I can see that this view is widely peer reviewed and accepted.
"organism that shares no genetic history with any other organism on Earth"
That's not what we are discussing.
Forgive me, but I beg to differ. As I just admitted, my knowledge of genetic biology is limited, to be generous. However, I would still contend that two organisms without a common ancestor would be apparent by their lack of genetically determined history. In fact, it would be a very significant disproof of common descent.
There's a problem with the single common ancestor idea. Life is found all over the earth, from the ocean floors to very deep underground. How did life spread from a single location to all these locations? Isn't that just a bit iffy? And what precludes life forming multiple times in a similar way?
So there's similarities in DNA. On what basis then is the 'conclusion' that there was a single common ancestor? What is the logical reasoning leading up to this conclusion? And don't say, go research it, no, you answer the question.
I don't have the training or the technical expertise to give you more than the very basic answer I already have. So, for more in-depth information, I'll let these guys answer.