[PugetSoundSoldier]

How about just using the definition: Decent from a common ancestor.

OK. Let's assume that's a good definition.

How does that definition encapsulate the start of life? Where does it address the creation of the initial ancestor?

It doesn't. It says nothing about it. Ergo, claiming that evolutionists MUST be athiest and cannot believe in God or creation or Intelligent Design falls flat on its face.

By your own proferred definition, we are talking STRICTLY ABOUT THE PROCESS, not the beginning, no?

[Tramonto]

I guess the process starts at the beginning with a simple organism. Although we now know that simple organisms don’t exist. They are all highly engineered, complex molecular machines.

If you did just start with a complex single celled organism and and tried to explain the diversity of life through evolutionary terms, there just isn’t evidence for it. If there was actually a reasonable amount of evidence for decent from a common ancestor, there would be no controversy.

Its interesting that many YEC have a very similar view of evolution that you are suggesting. They believe that only a few different types of animals and plants were created (created kinds/barmins)but they contained the information to evolve all the different species we see today. For example, there was only one type of cat, one type of dog, etc.. Basically, they believe that the creatures were preprogrammed to evolve using “altruistic genetic elements” aka transposons.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Claiming that all species share a common ancestor is claiming something about the origins of life, namely that whatever caused the origin of life only happened once, creating a single simple lifeform which is the ancestor of all living things. Darwinists act like their disinterest in the question of the origins of life is some kind of strength of the theory of evolution. In fact it may be its greatest weakness. The whole theory practically begs the question of origins. If some simple single-celled life form was created out of the “primordial soup” once, then why not twice? Why not many times? If life came to Earth on a comet, couldn't it have come on more than one comet? Could different animal kingdoms not be related at all? If unrelated living things adapted to the same environments, it is not surprising that they could have developed similar traits. Different animals might have similar qualities, but it does not therefore follow that they are all related to one another.