Evolution V Creation

[Darwinian]

The definition of a species is one that can successfully breed with another. That is to say that if one animal can have offspring with another then they will (normally) be classified as the same species.

Now, the term species may well be a human invention but the fact that these differentiations exist in the first place is entirely natural. We simply observe them and give them names. So it is not man who decides what is or is not a new species at all. It is man who observes these clear and natural differences in the animal kingdom and gives them titles. They exist independently of our interpretation.

A conclusion of descent of all life from a single common ancestor is the most rational view as so far we have not come across a single life form that cannot in some way be shown to be biologically related to any other. If, as you seem to be suggesting, there are many groups of organisms on this world that can trace their ancestory back to completely different abiogenesis then we would see this in the biological world as it would be obvious. The simple fact that an oak tree can 'read' the dna of a shrimp must tell us something about the family history of life on Earth.

All living things on this world have their genome either in the form of DNA or RNA. That must have originated from a single common ancestor. If you can provide proof of any organism that does not use this template or suggest how, out of the billions of possible carbon/protein bonds etc. this particular solution was used by totally separate examples of abiogenesis then I'd like to hear it.

So, to summarise, we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.