We really need to do a better job avoiding the term, "common ancestor" unless we spend the time clarifying what that means. It means a prior common species, not a first pair. In the context of evolution, there becomes several branches from the original branch stemming from the slight shuffle of DNA sequences that create different looks over millions of years. But there is no "first couple" but a prior species other species split off from.

I think we can do a better job by saying "common ancestors" in that our closer related relatives can and do have multiple offspring that lead to more families and thus more future branches that go on to look slightly different. 

The other thing that we can do is to also explain there was no "first pair" of DNA, but first conditions that lead to countless strands in the same time period. Much like a rain storm doesn't drop rain drops in sequence but tons of raindrops during the same storm(time period).

No matter how simple it is made, the mind of the denier is even more simlpe.

Common ancester is a recognized term in biology.  For example LUCA - Last Universal Common Ancester - is the term for the hypothetical ancesteral organism on the line of descent to us that is evolutionarily closest but still equidistant to from all current lineages of life on earth.

LUCA occupies the point on our tree of life exactly where the very first branch diverged.

(December 2, 2018 at 12:38 pm)no one Wrote: No matter how simple it is made, the mind of the denier is even more simlpe.

True, but for those who are interested in it and accept it, when they turn and repeat it themselves the accuracy helps. 

I like the way Dawkins describes DNA in that it is not like mixing paint, but more like shuffling a deck of cards.

---

(December 2, 2018 at 12:41 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Common ancester is a recognized term in biology.  For example LUCA - Last Universal Common Ancester - is the term for the hypothetical ancesteral organism on the line of descent to us that is evolutionarily closest but still equidistant from all current lineages of life on earth.

Yes as in species. But not as in a specific individual single pair of that species. There is no way to single out an individual pair in that context, just the genes that are labeled as a specific species. It is better to call that species our common ancestors not a single pair. Even today, parents can have brothers and sisters on top of multiple offspring whom go on to have their own brothers and sisters. So it is not good to say "common ancestor" otherwise why call our primate ancestors our "cousins"? 

And again, It is accepted in science to say "common ancestor", that part is true. But just like the word "law" laypeople, especially fundies confuse that with a "lawgiver" and it does not mean the same thing. 

Like I said, there was no first pair of DNA, there were first conditions that lead to countless strands of DNA. Just like there is no "first couple" hurricanes, but a season as to which multiple hurricanes happen, even at the same time in different parts of the world because of conditions. It is possible to have more than one hurricane in the Atlantic at the same time.

Common Ancestors is going to muddy the conversation with the prospect of various different common ancestors spread out across space and time.

Most Recent Common Ancestral Population would be more accurate, but hitting a n00b with MRCAP and trying to explain speciation as the gradual divergence of subpopulations over both space and time is going to be a bit overwhelming. Simplification is a necessary pedagogical tool or you'd need a course in optics to properly understand why rainbows happen. Add a course in child psychology and a degree in education plus a few weeks of time to explain that to your average 4 year old.

The plagues that ravaged Egypt are unbelievable fantasy, but human beings sharing a common ancestor with a pineapple is absolute scientific truth!

Well some people are fruits, right?

At work.

(December 2, 2018 at 2:34 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: The plagues that ravaged Egypt are unbelievable fantasy, but human beings sharing a common ancestor with a pineapple is absolute scientific truth!

It's not that they're fantasy but that they aren't corroborated by any archeological evidence.

Any large amount of a population dropping off the twig will leave quite a discernable mark about the place.

We have 50% yeast dna.
Many creationists get their entire intelligence off the mother's side!

I will not let those idiots control my speech. If they don't understand a term let them look it up.