Erhm, before I go respond to the latest responses I feel I need to go back and respond to some prior responses.
If they occupy a similar niche - say, flight - with another, unrelated organism, why is their DNA sequence more like relateds without such abilities? Why is a bat rodent-like, and share more DNA with rodents than it does with a bird? Surely if they were specially created to occupy such a niche, there would be no reason for them to share so much DNA with a flightless relative.
What's the threshold?
One could even design a better bat with bird DNA.
Prove.
No, it does not "fit" creationism, or fairy dust (whatever that is.) It fits well within the concept that we are all based on the same ancestor.
I did not say it doesn't fit well within the concept that we are all based on the same ancestor. I said it fits
equally wellwith any creation narrative, be it evolution, creationism, panspermia, or any other narrative you can think of.
There are many ways to store data in a genome; DNA is just one of those ways. The fact that all life on the planet shares the same method of doing so is strong evidence that we had one ancestor that did so.
Or that we had a creator with deep understanding of engineering principles who used the most efficient method known to man (replaceable parts) to engineer all of life's diversity.
As I said, it is evidence of nothing.
If we saw some organisms with DNA, some with a magnetically-coded genome, some that used crystal voids to encode genetic data, then you would have a strong argument that they do not share a common ancestor.
You are begging the question.
We had the theory of evolution before we knew about DNA. The theory of evolution predicts DNA.
Quite the opposite. The original theory of evolution as coined by Darwin rejected the concept of DNA, discovered by Gregory Mendel. It was only accepted by the evolutionary theory around 1930, well
after Darwin's death, because they had no choice. All of their own theories got proven wrong over and over, and all evidence was piling up in favor of DNA.
There is [as far as I am aware] nothing within Darwin's theory of evolution excluding Panspermia. Evolution and Panspermia can compliment each other. Panspermia extends the parameters of evolution of life on Earth, to include the evolution of life in the Universe.
Indeed, but what is your point exactly. While panspermia doesn't contradict evolution, it also doesn't support it. It could have happened with or without evolution. So, this is a moot point.
I noticed you used the word rabbit in quotes, is that because it's not really a rabbit?
Yes, the original challenge was to find a complex animal like any mammal or something. And it was found, so the evolutionists had to double down and ask for an earlier one. Sincerely, I always took the rabbit demand on the cambrian the same lines, that is, any complex animal would do.
I gave the line a cursory glance and found that most of the earlier species in the Eohippus progression were found in North America. Which members did you mean?
I stopped believing in the pseudo-science of evolution when I stopped giving cursory glances on the subjects of my study. You should try, sometime.
Get
every animal listed on the line. Check all data known or speculated about it; size, location, diet, age of appearance, age of disappearance, living environment, habits, anything. Table it. If there any changes of location, see if there is a real possibility of migration from one area to another. If there was any change of diet, see if makes sense. Check the ages for gaps. Check everything.
Do a scientist's work. Know what you are saying.