That is, bacteria produce other kinds of bacteria. No one really disputes this--however, if this is used as an argument that *all* life is descended from a single cell, well, then there's a problem.
Obviously, nobody makes that assertion. Why would they? What would the adaptive power of bacteria have to do with the relationships between organisms?
Common heredity is inferred from a number of evidences, including genetic evidence, taxonomic evidence, and the improbable convergence of cladistics and stratiography. But it's not inferred from the ability of bacteria to adapt.
Okay, so this is wonderful for a creationist view--now, rather than saying that God created every conceivable species of beetle out there, you could simply say that once a couple of beetles were created, over time they evolved, they produced different kinds of beetles, even new species of them.
Right, but that's a model that fails on a number of levels, but mostly Occam's Razor - if a model where all species decended from a number of different kinds and a model where all species decended from one kind give the same results - those results being the species we see today - why would we go with the model with more original kinds? If everything alive can be traced back to one kind, why assume there has ever been more than one kind?
Then again, if you believe that those models don't give the same results, then surely you can answer the question no creationist has ever been able to:
Given two different species, how do you determine if they're decended from the same kind, or from different kinds?
I believe this later statement is something that has to be taken on faith.
Not in the least. It's a scientific conclusion based on evidence from genetics, taxonomy, and the convergence of stratiography and cladistics.
Nor do we need to assume that all mammals share a common ancestor (if they did, would the common ancestor lay eggs or produce live young, or maybe some weird cross between the 2?)
Well, we don't need to
assume that there's a transitional form between mammals and reptiles - we can observe that there are. And yes, they do lay eggs.
So faith is required on both sides of the debate.
No, there's not. At least, I don't consider it "faith" to tentatively accept conclusions that explain evidence and observation. That readiness to reject any model that becomes contradicted by evidence, which is what scientists have, is not what I would consider a characteristic of "faith."
On the other hand, the tendancy of creationists to pick the conclusion
first and then ignore any data that doesn't support it
is what I would consider typical of a position held by faith.
Like all science, there's no faith involved in evolution.
Unfortunately the origin of life is something that we cannot directly observe, so yes it is a matter of faith.
No more than we have to take it on "faith" that you were born of woman, in a uterus. Afer all, you don't remember, do you? And none of us were there, right?
It's simply the most likely explanation of
your origin, just as evolution is the most likely origin of all species.
The purpose should be to come up with a rational account of how life got here
They've already done that, though. It's called "evolution." You should look into it - it's a lot different than what you've presented here, so I suspect you don't know all that much about it.
™ Version 4.2
