Clades and Kinds

So you visit a cliff one day. You see a rock on edge of the cliff. The next day you see the same rock at the foot of the cliff.In order to understand how the rock managed to get down there do I need to understand1) Rock formation.
2) The origins of gravity.
3) The origins of wind.Could I not just suppose it fell? God created the first life form. It was single celled. Agreed. Fortunately I believe because of the scientific evidence so we're all good, eh? How about if instead I produce scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence that mankind descended from primate ancestors? Would that not satisfy you that life has evolved? I'm perfectly happy to accept this as a starting point. The next question is: Can life evolve from other life? For instance can humans have evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes?

Good. So we both agree that you don't need to know an entities origin to be able to describe some part of its existence. I'm tentatively accepting your premise and seeing if your conclusions are valid. No he didn't, he said he did it by creating the first life as a single celled being. Now we have established a theistic origin - how does that impact evolution exactly? I won't. As I said - I believe because of the scientific evidence. If you want to discuss that - you're welcome to join me in a thread that discusses some of that in more detail. No. I propose to discuss multiple independent lines of evidence that converge towards one particular explanation - common ancestry. Why can a life form not produce the first life on earth, having designed it to change? It sounds like your argument is not"If you don't know where life originated you can't say it evolved"but rather"Yahweh said they didn't evolve"If that is your argument then the discussion is over. There's no point talking about it.It seems to me that you are just saying that if evidence of "cross-kind" evolution was presented it to you that would not be sufficient evidence that life has evolved. That doesn't make any sense to me, could you clarify?

You shouldn't. But this thread is about those that argue that example 'x' of evolution is only 'evolution within a kind' and is not 'one kind evolving into another kind'. Since you seem to accept that new kinds can form through descent - then there is nothing else to debate. No need to continue the amusing side topic about what god said and how showing how chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor would not be evidence that life evolves Your argument with evolution is different than the one this topic is about.