The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

If we can define words as we please and not use the general meaning for a word like UCA (which has it's official definition and can have other definitions you can make up) , then I might as well define the word Chocolate to mean a red car. You can say, I see UCA as this, but don't use definition because that's saying "This is for a fact, what UCA is." So your just stating that the definition you provided is your OPINION. I would like to see the molecular and fossil evidence to disprove the tree of life. If we can at least show one branch, we know it came from a tree. Such examples are the Whale and Dolphin sharing a common ancestor with Pakicetus. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... As well as the evolution to the horse. http://img.wonkette.com... Another way to learn about these fossils being a part of the tree of life, is the biological classification of other species. This is where Kingdom, Genus and Species comes from. (1) Classification gives us divisions over the types of families that each species belongs to based on the similarities and traits they have. Now I'll just leave you to do the scientific evidence as to how molecular evidence disproves evolution. Well this is interesting. Phylogenetic analyses does not support tree-thinking. I'll admit I have no clue what these terms are or if I am an expert in any of them. I do know that if we look at the whale and horse tree I showed, and keep going down, things eventually reach to them sharing so many ancestors, that it reaches to a single one in the end. This is just my theory. I don't claim to know the answers for 100% certainty, just like you shouldn't. Can you explain what Independent Data is? Alright after the refuting, I'm going to make my presentation now. Why is UCA true? Simple, you observe life and it's similar characteristics that can lead to the ancestor. Darwin examined these on his trip to the Galapagos Islands when he studied 9 species of finches. UCA is like the Big Bang from how I see it. If you notice the universe is still expanding, then you know you can imagine the universe being rewound back to the time it started. This eventually lead to a small glowing star that gave birth to an expanding and beautiful universe. If one finch gave rise to 9 different species, then the finch could very well be a result of the same process. So we keep applying that to the finch and other species until we reach the common ancestor, which I haven't looked up or known if we even found the common ancestor. We can also prove Common Ancestry with humans. You have a cousin. Bob or Joe or whoever. Who do you and your cousin have a common ancestor with? Think about it for a moment and you'll find that you share a common ancestor with one of your relatives. Another way to understand evolution and common ancestry is Gregor Mendel, the man behind the pea plant experiments that showed heredity. To get a better visual, I will post this source, which is where some of my arguments stem from. (2) Now Mendel crossed two different pea plants. One yellow, one green. Now the question is, what will happen? Surely out of the four, there's going to be a green right? It produced four yellow pea plants. When this happened, Mendel checked the results of when one of the yellow plants self pollinated and found that it produced 3 yellow and one green. So how was this explained? Inheritance. The dominant trait was the yellow, but while the recessive hidden green trait didn't appear in the yellow pea plants, the trait to cause green pea plants was still inside it's genes that could be passed down to the next generation. So the conclusion, eventually, while two different people are different, one will be dominant and another will give a recessive trait. The recessive trait can become active later on, which can cause the species to look different. But apply what we know about early life and you'll see that they changed from the reproduction cycle as well as their adapting. Mutations is a topic I'll touch on later if I have time. But imagine that yellow and green plant chart in the source. Put a very old relative in that chart. And watch where the tree goes. Let' make another test. Mom and dad had 4 kids. Each got married. Two were males that had direct dominant traits, but the two daughters were married to a male of another family generation that looks different then them. So when they reproduce, the dominant trait is most likely going to come from somewhere and let's for the sake of the argument say the male has the dominant traits. The 4 new offspring has their new looks and features. This can go on until you meet Linda Rondhat who has a common ancestor named Balailaika Earnhardt with her sister or cousin. That is all I will post for now. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://anthro.palomar.edu... http://www.youtube.com...