One mistake evolution advocates make.
December 2, 2018 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: December 2, 2018 at 12:24 pm by Brian37.)
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).
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).
