'Living fossils' and amber fossils disproves evolution (the idea all life came from a common ancestor)

[theprof00]

padib said:

theprof00 said:

It does not say that all life came from one specific cell. It says that all live came from single celled organisms. There is a difference between saying one specific cell multiplied into all life, and saying thousands of cells might have all appeared concurrently.

I don't know the basics, but evolution is more about a "stuff" being the root of all life, and not one specific thing. ie; Adam isn't the father of all humans, Adam appeared at the same time as Pedro, Xin, Murphy, Bjorn, and Dunga. All fathered their own children. (to use an example you might better understand)

To be totally honest the first example was better. :B Okay, so OP was correct. I understand I meant basic cell as in a base species, not a base lifeform. Okay, my understanding was accurate. Thanks for clarifying.

But that's not what evolution says. It doesn't say everything comes from a common ancestor, and for example, all people could come from pedro, xin, murphy, etc, and not just Adam.

Much of the argument over this whole topic comes from the lack of care to get the details right. OP gets both the messenger AND the message wrong.

Evo does not say "all life from common ancestor", and furthermore "all life does not come from common ancestor". He's using a false message, saying it was from the wrong theory, and using that to make a flat point.