self-conflicted T.E. does not survive attention to details

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . . What I am trying to point out is that the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means isn't a scientific definition, it's a philosophical one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Its at least a scientific hypothesis. It's something that makes a lot of sense, its something that can be tested for, and it is either true or false, and testing should confirm which is the case.

Of course, having a consistent defined tree of life is evidence for common descent.

Those who deny evolution on religious grounds are unable to even accept such ideas as evolution of humans from other primates. This is established so firmly it cannot be reasonably denied. (we all know there is a lot of denial of such relations, but those denials are all faith based and evidence rejecting.)

Those who accept the reality of human evolution from primates have no particular objection to going further and accepting common descent of all life . . . . why not? There is that universal nested hierarchy AKA the tree of life, and that indicates universal common descent is true.