Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms

Thanks to Pro for his timely response. C1- Here Pro presents an excellent flow chart showing how common descent follows the scientific method. Looks good, seems scientific so far, but let's dig in a bit. Test- Check to see if morphological and molecular evidence match. Match what?? Analyze and Conclude- Matches what with a high degree of significance?? Each other?? Ok, so morphological and molecular evidence of what was compared match, so what can we conclude from that?? We can conclude that the two objects that were compared are morphologically and molecularly similar. Hypothesis is True- Wait, what?? The original question was, How did the different species originate?? Has that original question been answered and I missed it?? No, of course not.What happened was that Pro slipped in a hidden assumption that is not supported by science, into the "Construct Hypothesis" section. That is that morphological and molecular similarity, which is all that was shown in the experiment, automatically means that the test subjects share ancestry, thus are related. As I said last round, common descent is "assumed", under the guise ofhaving followed a legitimate scientific method, using what is alledged to be supporting scientific evidence. That's pseudo-science.As for my religious beliefs, they are irrelevant to this debate section, though I'd be happy to discuss that at another time. C2- Pro states that his argument is not circular reasoning, yet he contradicts himself when he says, "My C1 shows that if we group organisms based on morphology (form and structure) assuming common descent...". He admits what I've been saying, that common descent is "assumed", in the arguments presented. In fact, you can't even construct a phylogenetic tree, or perform cladistic analysis, without grouping organisms with the assumption that common descent is true. As I just showed in C1, the fact that morphology and molecular make-up are similar does not support a conclusion of shared ancestry. The evidence doesn't lead you to the conclusion of common descent, you must assume common descent in your interpretation of the evidence. That very same assumption is at the heart of Pro's arguments on the fossil record, and vestigial organs, from last round and this one. That's circular reasoning, and that's pseudo-science. So what if a tree based on morphology lines up with a tree based on molecular comparison?? Animals that have commonalities will undoubtedly show molecular similarities, if it is the case that the molecular make-up is in control of morphology, that just seems like a common sense finding. In spite of the inordinate number of possible trees that Pro argues, realistically, if organisms are morphologically similar would you expect to find them molecularly different?? Of course not, and there is the segue into my next point. What would the molecular make-up of organisms that aren't related look like?? In truth, with the assumption that all biological life forms are related, evolutionists do not know how two unrelated organisms would compare. No such creature exists, under their paradigm, so they wouldn't know unrelated organisms if they tripped over them. There is no life form on earth that would not fall somewhere on the evolutionary tree of life. With that in mind, evolutionists give us a few examples of things that could falsify UCD, such as trees not nesting within error. Most of those examples though, require us to disprove their assumptions. The goal of the experimental phase, of the scientific method, is to TRY to falsify the hypothesis. However if you start with the assumption that all life forms are related, then how could I ever show you a life form that isn't related to all others, and show you why?? That's impossible, and it is why evolutionists demand that falsification be in the certain manner that they provide for. In spite of massive differences that have been shown, falsification has been rejected due to the assertion and assumption that all life forms are related through the common ancestor. That makes falsification extremely difficult because there is absolutely no way to show what an unrelated organism would look like. That's pseudo-science.As for cytochrome c, it is found in almost all life forms and the sequences are similar, in similar organisms. Again, this is no surprise. Pro says, "Without common descent, there is no reason to assume that any two organisms will have similar cytochrome c sequences as it is completely unrelated to morphology and human cytochrome c functions in yeast. There is a 1 out of 10^93 chance of finding the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence in human and chimpanzees". I would ask...How do you know that they would be different in unrelated individuals since your theory allows for no unrelated individuals. You have no model from which to draw a comparison, thus we're left to simply trust your word that "there is no reason to assume they would be similar". In truth, such an assertion as well as the probability numbers given, are mere speculation. That's pseudo-science. The study I posted from Tomkins was merely to highlight the fact that many discontinuities are being ignored, in favor of focusing on that particular similarity.C3- We all agree that adaptation and variation (micro-evolution) is a fact. Pro states that the same forces that cause micro, extend to macro over longer time periods. Aside from the pseudo-science that I've already rebutted, can an example be shown?? Of course not. In spite of what we CAN observe, we're suppose to just believe that it happened.Having the ability to both adapt to the current environment, as well as change to different kinds of organisms over long time periods is redundant. If organisms can become successful and survive, why would they need to change into different kinds, as a way of responding to the same kinds of selection pressures that they have already dealt with through adaptation?? Bottom line is that there is no known process by which a cow's dna becomes something other than cow dna. Two cows breeding will never produce anything other than more cow dna. If Pro can't provide an example of his claimed process in action then he's merely asserting it as fact, and putting the burden of proof on me to disprove his claim. I just provided a limiting factor, which Pro cannot overcome with anything more than the pseudo-scientific claims we've already discussed.All cases of speciation result in the same kind of organism. In spite of thousands of generations of lab experiments, microbial life is still microbial life and nothing more, even though scientists define that microbial life as different species. A microbe is still a microbe, and there is no scientific reason to think that it will ever be anything more than a microbe, no matter how long you wait and observe. I have already addressed Pro's arguments on the fossil record in both of the last two rounds. C4- This entire section is nothing more than argumentum ad populum. As Galilelo showed us, it only takes one person to be right, no matter how many are against him. If Pro's numbers are accurate, then we have 700 times more than what we actually need. :)I look forward to the final round.