Evolutionary Tree

[SteveII]

Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.

-I'm- intentionally mixing definitions?  Dude, just stop this, put down your fucking bible, stop trawling your creatard websites...... and pick up a textbook.  

There is the observation of evolution..a fact.  Then, there is the Theory of Evolution (Modern Synthesis)...which as others have tried to beat into the brick wall you call your skull...is a vast and well attested constellation of facts leveraged as an explanation for the initial observation, the singular fact of evolution - that organisms have and continue to change over the course of time.  There's no need for me to argue anything to preserve that "fact status".   Neither you nor I deny that life has and continues to change...do we?  So you, too, even if you weren't aware of it, accept the fact of evolution...regardless of whether or not you accept the Theory of Evolution.

Neither the fact nor the theory -require- that you and I and a chimp share a common ancestry....that;s just an observation borne out by genetic evidence, yet more facts...which are explicable in the context -of- the theory.  Some people do and have proposed separate origins for different types of life....which have since evolved.

There are three ways the word 'evolution' is used when talking about biology: 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") 

Many atheist combine them a separate them to suit their particular needs at the time. I was trying to clarify what you meant.