[johnnyb_61820]

"The theory of evolution has never purported to explain the origin of life. I do not understand the relevance."

Common Descent rests squarely on a specific view of the origin of life. As Gordon has pointed out, when you remove that assumption, you do not get common ancestry -- sometimes even up to the family level of taxa (which is where creationists put it as well -- though I'm sure for the most part Gordon would put the origin of monophyly a little higher taxonomically than creationists would):

http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2006/02/monophyly-in-biology.html

Also, Darwinism requires the animal to continue to create massive amounts of information by haphazard changes. This has likewise been shown to be in error, as many of the changes in genetics proceed according to planned, structured mechanisms, which direct genetic changes to useful areas.

Again, Darwinism says "no teleology". Evidence says "yes, much teleology".

"This is an appeal to ignorance."

Can you name another category of causation besides necessity, chance, and agency? If not, then this is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge. Otherwise, we would have to uproot the entire scientific enterprise as being an "appeal to ignorance" since every induction we ever do is based on the fact that we know of no other way certain events occur.

Again, if you know of another category of causation, please let me know. As the paper I referenced points out, chance and necessity are insufficient causes.

[Dimensio]

Common Descent rests squarely on a specific view of the origin of life.

I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

If, as you say, common descent "rests squarely on a specific view of the origin of life", then only one of the above hypothesis can be true for common descent to have occured. Please identify which of the five must be true for common descent to have occured, and explain why any two of the other options would prevent common descent from occuring.

[Right Wing Professor]

Do you have any evidence at all for polyphyly in 23S RNA, which isn't subject to lateral transfer?

[jec41]

Can you name another category of causation besides necessity, chance, and agency?

Unknown is the category. It is the philosophical argument for faith and belief in things unknown.