John Paul:
Science doesn't suggest that, some scientists do. Big difference. Ever read Woese? There wasn't one common descedent. Science and scientists disagree with you.
Where, exactly, did Carl Woese claim that?
Variations are very different than the evolution you believe in. There isn't any evidence to support the alleged "great transformations" required by the ToE.
Which ones?
What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?
One organism ate another but neglected to digest it. This is clearly the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and likely also that of the eukaryotic nucleus. But instead of losing much of its genetic material, it gained genetic material from its host.
Just-so stories and assertions are not to be confused with evidence- scietific or otherwise. I have heard & read the stories. I know about endosymbiosis (Lynn Margulis).
John Paul, there are oodles of evidence for mitochondrion and chloroplast endosymbiosis.
And what makes you so sure that creationism isn't a "Just So Story"? To me, "Goddidit!" seems like the ultimate Just So Story.
What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?
Colonial ones. All that a one-celled organism has to do is have its offspring to neglect to separate from each other. Their offspring do likewise, and the result is a big mass of one-celled organisms.
True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?
John Paul, what, short of going back in time in a time machine, would you consider acceptable evidence?
Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.
Like what do you mean?
We now know enough of micro-biology to know that the genes governing fin development are not the same genes that govern limb development in tetrapods. If the ToE were indicative of reality then homolgy would extend down to the microbiological level. It doesn't.
Describe those genes for us. John Paul, if you are such a big expert, that should be E-Z for you to do.
One of the most remarkable results over the last decade or so is that genetic mechanisms underlying development are homologous -- "deep homology". Hox genes were first discovered in fruit flies, where they specify front-to-rear identity, and they have subsequently been found all across the animal kingdom, where they do the same thing.
Likewise, fish fins and tetrapod limbs have related developmental pathways, though there are some differences in detail.
IC has been shot to pieces? By evidence or more "just-so" stories? Any links? Behe has refuted all critics. Go figure...
What are Behe's "refutations"?
Fossils say nothing of a mechanism. The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catastrophes. Which goes against gradualism. And also calls in to question the age of the strata.
Poor John Paul does not seem to have ever heard of lake-bed and riverbed sediments.
(on eye evolution)
Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted?
WHERE???
(footprints, eggshells, etc.)
Please go on about these fragile fossils. They only show that gradualism couldn't account for them. No one said that the catastrophe had to occur right on top of these things. What we do know about fossilization says a quick burial is required.
LOCAL catastrophes do just fine, like volcanic eruptions, floods, etc. Noah's Flood is an entirely unnecessary hypothesis, and it cannot explain the Earth's extremely complex geological history.
™ Version 4.2
