Assumptions

No. That's a conclusion based on evidence. No. That's a tautology. No, not people who have studied and understood the evidence. Science answers questions based on evidence. Why should we consider the "common sense" opinions of people who haven't even studied the evidence?

Based on common sense, matter is solid, the sun goes around the Earth, and there are no supernatural entities affecting life on this planet.Well, one out of three ain't bad.

Of course you do. The only way we know anything at all about the world is through the evidence that we observe.Let me put it this way: suppose I were to challenge your claim that every person and every animal was brought into the world by a parent. How would you prove to me that it's true? Nope, I never did. But it's absurd to think that I have to personally research every facet of a particular subject to know anything about it. But the evidence that we see in the natural world shows that this is not the case. Either that or the divine being used a method that precisely duplicates what we would see if life evolved.What's more, the answer that it was made that way by a divine being doesn't answer every single question. How did the being do it? Why did the being do it? Why did the being make it look as though life had evolved? Those are three questions off the top of my head that are not answered by your "simple" statement.The problem you have is you believe that your own "common sense" conclusion should trump the evidence that is found in the natural world. It doesn't.

No. I conclude that based on the evidence, as do you, even though you don't understand that you do. Perhaps. But you certainly don't understand it... ...or you wouldn't say that... ...or that.And no amount of rhetoric can get around the fact that the ToE doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics. No, the evidence explains that. Since there's no evidence whatsoever of anything that could constitute a "parent" as that word is commonly understood, if that were the central question of the debate, the answer would be a resounding NO.

Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, it is a demonstrable fact that it required evidence to establish that every living being has a parent.You may be familiar with the phrase "spontaneous generation." It's an idea that's older than Aristotle and was a commonly accepted idea until disproven, ultimately, by Pasteur (although he built on the work of others before him).For centuries, it wasn't an obvious truth that life came from life. It wasn't until evidence proved the falsity of spontaneous generation that it was abandoned. It's only obvious today because of the evidence that Pasteur and others produced.