Percy,
You wrote:"The ToE is just a framework of understanding that unites Darwinian concepts like descent with modification and natural selection with a genetic foundation. The ToE never axiomatically held that all life descends from a single original cell. That's just a once-common perspective that fit within the framework of the theory, as do the newer perspectives on this topic. It was not a major aspect of the theory, but rather just a possibility permitted within the framework of the theory.
The possibility of all modern life descending from a single cell is consistent with the ToE. So is the possibility of all modern life descending from a community of gene-sharing cells. Changing preferences within the scientific community for one over the other do not require any change to the encompassing theory."
The problem that I appear to be having is that you and Larry appear to be aware of the same info that I am on the topic.
You appear to follow and agree with my argument.
But then you end with the typical Darwinian rhetoric that it is possible that all life stemmed from one ancestral cell.
I have listed quotes in my previous post. Most of the Biological text that I have ever read on the topic and even the Talkorigin link make the claim that all biodiversity can be traced to a single live organism. They claim the current ToE explains biodiversity all the way back to this single live organism. So how can you make the claim that it is not a major aspect of the theory. At the very least, you must admit that it is always presented as a major aspect of the theory and no alternative possibility is usually mentioned.
Can you list some popular reputable textbook that states that all life emerged from a paraphyletic community of gene sharing cells? A possibility that is more consistent with the actual evidence.
Is single cell ancestry possible? Yes, in the same way almost anything is possible with a dearth of evidence. But it is simply not the most likely scenario given the same information that we both seem to be aware of.
If you in fact think single live ancestor is more likely, can you or Larry explain to me what I am missing? Because it appears to me that the evidence points in one direction, yet ToE currently presents an alternate possibility as the only one mostly because it more closely resembles Darwin's original argument.