Talk:Universal common ancestry

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Removed from intro:

The idea is that every species has descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

Where is this supported or even amplified later on in the article? --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:49, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Hmm ... not sure what you mean ... do you mean that the article doesn't provide any support for the proposition that universal common ancestry means that all life descended from a common ancestor? Ungtss 13:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, based on their belief that the scientific evidence makes universal common ancestry appear highly improbable or impossible. Some sourced examples of this scientific evidence would improve the article.

on the way. Ungtss 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea Did pagans really believe that all life on Earth is related via a single family tree from a common ancestor?

the article doesn't say they did -- only CD with animals. Ungtss 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

The cars argument about common design characteristics makes creationists look silly. Life forms (species) reproduce themselves. Makes of car don't.

that doesn't affect the argument. The argument is "similarity does not imply common descent any more than common design." cars show that to be true. Just because things reproduce doesn't mean they're related either. Ungtss 10:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

PhilMcAvity 06:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Creationism and UCD

I'm not sure that the current wording doesn't do Creationism a disservice. The way it's worded--placing evidence first and the Bible second--suggests that Creationists reject UCD primarily because they question the evidence, and only secondarily because they accept the Biblical account. I think most Creationists would confirm that faith in the Bible comes first, and the evidence only serves to corroborate this. --Benp 17:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)