: That is exactly my point. If you force the evolutionists to stick to what
: they can defend scientifically, I don't think they can defend common
: descent. Evolution as defined by population geneticists is scientifically
: defensible, but it's a long way from establishing common descent. (Common
: descent is what most people mean when they say evolution) By accepting the
: gene frequency definition of evolution -- and only that definition -- we
: avoid unnecessary fights with researchers who study the observable behavior
: of genes. The issue as I see it is whether the _observed_ instances of
: evolution are sufficient to justify the phylogeny inferred by Darwinism. I
: don't see the fossil record as unequivocal support for common descent.
: What the fossil record does show is that life developed (or was developed)
: in stages. That is consistent with PC, TE and some versions of ID.
Could you please elaborate why the fossil record, nested morphological
similarities (cladistics), DNA/protein homologies among species and
commonalties of metabolism and biochemistry do not support common descent
but rather your idea of "development in stages." What do you mean by
development of life "in stages"?
Thank you,
--Glenn A. Friedrich