Religious deflections and tangents are very common with this subject.. which proves again the religious nature of the theory of common descent.
And, since the Believers in common descent seem unaware of the core arguments for their beliefs, i will be glad to post and examine them, as well.
Assumptions, assertions, obfuscating techno babble, and, of course, pretended Intellectual superiority are the main 'proofs' for common descent, but occasionally a feeble attempt is made to allude to actual science.. it makes the Believers feel better and superior to those with alternate beliefs. But, if you examine the scientific evidence with scrutiny and skepticism, the airtight science they claim is flawed.. based on myriads of assumptions, and arguments of plausibility.
Here is another argument, that the True Believers think proves common descent is 'settled science!'
Time and Mutation
This is the argument that, 'given enough time, anything is possible!' It is the primary support for abiogenesis, or the belief that life spontaneously generated itself, in a distant primordial ooze. It is an argument of probability.
1. Mutations happen.
2. Given enough time, a mutation could have happened, to cause a verticle change in the genome, to create a new genetic architecture.
3. Millions of years are suggested, as the facilitator.
..with no validity, no verification, fraught with assumptions, and surrounded by contrary evidence. No mechanism is defined, no observation possible, no explanation as to HOW time can somehow magically enable an unknown, unobservable, untestable, event. 'It just happened!', they assert without any scientific methodology, 'with enough time, anything is possible!'
But to calculate odds, for any statistical premise, the parameters of the event must have some measurable probability. It is not enough to cling to infinite possibility, when the event that is alleged has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it can happen, at all. Shrouding it in 'millions of years!', is a smoke screen, when in actual fact, there is NO EVIDENCE that increasing complexity can, did, or will happen. It is a belief.. a leap of faith to explain our origins through naturalism.
No structural changes in a genome have ever been observed, so time is suggested as a system of change.
But time has no mechanism of change. It is a passive factor, that only supports degradation, as entropy returns all matter and energy to simpler forms.
Add to that the far fetched notion that you had 2 genetic mutations, at the same time, with both male and female mutants to allow propagation of this new species, and the speculation becomes laughably absurd.
Mutations happen all the time. They are almost always deleterious, with negative consequences for the organism. A few are neutral, but there is no scientific way that structural changes in the genome can be explained by mutation. Adding time is a bluff.. wishful thinking to hide the impossibility of the imagined process.
'Given enough time, anything is possible!', cries the Believer in common descent. But it is not observable, repeatable, or even possible, by scientific methodology. It is an imaginary belief, nothing more.
A short summary of the central problems:
1. Lower levels of diversity tend to spell extinction of a particular haplogroup.
2. As the tips of a haplotree extend, the diversity decreases. Increasing complexity and diversity is NOT observed, but the opposite.
3. Some low diversity organisms, like sharks and cockroaches, continue for extended generations, with mimimal changes in their levels of diversity.
4. There is no evidence, of increasing genetic information, in any isolated haplogroup. They either have the traits needed to survive, or they don't.
5. Mutation is not a mechanism for structural genetic change. There is no evidence of mutation 'creating' new phylogenetic species, adding genes, chromosomes, or any additions to the genome.
6. Natural selection is only observed at the micro level, and is assumed or extrapolated to the macro level.
7. Macro 'natural selection', IS 'universal common descent'. It is not a mechanism for it. Rephrasing the theory as 'proof!' of itself is circular reasoning.