You do realize this applies whether or not universal common descent is true or not, right?
Sure. It always applies, anywhere. As long as you have competing systems that reproduce with variation - that process inevitably kicks in.
And the longer it goes on, the more changes accumulate in their "plans".
And that evolutionary history will leave a trace in their "plans". Those end systems will fall into a nested hierarchy. And by studying that hierarchy, you'll be able to tell which ones are closer related then others.
As it turns out, that is
exactly what we find in life on this planet.
So as it turns, it looks that this is exactly what happened: all life shares an ancestor and diversified over time through evolutionary processes.
No you probably don't... One is not even remotely sufficient enough to demonstrate the other.
How is it insufficient?
We understand the phenomena:
- what survives, survives
- new changes are introduced every generation
- inheritable genetics
We understand what kind of pattern emerges when this process goes on for a good amount of time: nested hierarchies that can be logically mapped unto a phylogenetic tree, a familiy tree if you wish.
When we look at life on this planet, that turns out to be
exactly what we find. And we find it on plenty of different levels, making it converge on
the same hierarchies approached from different angles.
You can trace back dna sequences, single genes, specific dna markers, ... with genetics.
You can trace back organs, muscles, bones,... with comparative anatomy.
You can even look at the geological distribution of species and bring that into the equation..
And it fits like a glove.
In what kind of universe are so many different converging lines of evidence "insufficient"??
Classic example of affirming the consequent.
No. Just the simplistic concept of how the process works. That's all it takes.
This is what is called pure imagination.
Is it "imagination" that if you continue to add up inches, you'll eventually end up with miles?
Actual observation shows us change is cyclical or deleterious. Take Darwin's Finches for example (which evolutionists have endlessly blundered in their interpretations). The finches are merely oscillating between the same set of pre-existing morphological bird-beak configurations. Splitting up in different populations and then coming back together again with the seasonal cycles. That is how nature really works. It does not mystically "evolve" new types of animals over time. It is so sad that your cult has actually convinced itself that nature is a magical creative force.
Then I guess you have to explain why so many different and independent lines of evidence all scream out common descent through the process of evolution.
