Changes

     A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that everything (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you still haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be able to falsify it.  

     A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that everything (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you still haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be able to falsify it.  

 

    The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable!  If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution.  This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

 

The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable!  If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution.  This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

      

      

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.