Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Problem is, people who defend this prevailing theory, lay people as well as the experts, are using dubious claims like this all the time.By modification, you mean, that descendents have mutations or just a different sample set of the ancestor genes, or both, and you believe that leads straight to the conclusion that all life descended from single celled ancestors?If your claim was valid, then all you have to do to proof common ancestry, is finding difference between parent and child. And all the research papers trying to proof it, are not even necessary. Of course, that is not the case! It does not work like that. Science does not work like that. More of the typical evolutionist tactic, trying to impose, and appealing to "overwhelming" or "enormous" data. Yet, so few of you actually follow the scientific method, that, even though not perfect, at least tries to be objective: formulate your hypothesis, specify the quantity that you have measured and at which level you would accept or reject your hypothesis. And then compare measurement with this critical level. Science demands proof, when a scientific claim is being made. If you cannot present your proof, then better not make the claim. Especially when you claim that it's fact that all live evolved from single celled ancestors. Then you need to do more than just showing that allele frequencies are not constant over time. Gene pools follow dynamic processes. Nobody disputes that life is ever changing and species have abilities to adapt, some more than others. That's fair. But on the evolutionist side, typical attitude is replying to everything with "evolution is fact, you don't understand it. There is so much evidence, got-cha!". But I suppose that is what we usually get, when both sides believe they are right 100%.

You call it "strong" evidence and I get that. Just how can we make this more objective. I know it's hard to put a p-value on this.What alternatives to UCA are we considereing? What would we expect to observe then?Some have been considering one or two or an unspecified few number of distincted common ancestors. Other theories are origins from outer space, creation by intelligence. Last one may be hard to compare as it needs specification on how life could have been created. We would need plausible evolutionary paths with evidencial support for some critical processes in species we see today. These things are often overlooked, as they seem so common. Lets take a look at one example: life cycle of butterflies, transformation to the last stage. We would need an evolutionary path to how this transformation started from the butterfly ancestor. As we see now, pupa's body structure is almost completely incinerated internally, to give way of forming a whole new butterfly appearance.Do you have any plausible path of how this gradually changed in smaller steps from the ancestor without this transformation, upto the butterfly species we see today, in all its varieties?I would lean towards intelligent creation, rather than gradual steps of evolution. Also due to the fact that I would expect a line of gradual evolution to produce more branches, other than just the "fully" completed butterfly species. But it's hard to know what exactly to expect, when it is not clear what intermediate species would be like. What could be in between full transformation (for the butterfly) and no transformation at all (for the butterfly ancestor who at some point starting to evolve towards transformation)?As there are many examples like this, without any plausible intermediates, being as objective as possible, evidence is in favor of intelligent creation over gradual evolution. I don't think it's scientific to cling onto a theory that is not plausible, do you?

Yes, I agree. That is why UCA seems to be the only viable option for science to consider. If UCA fails, we need to reconsider our origins. We have branches of species with larvae gradually changing into their adult form, and branches of species where larvae/caterpillars that completely rid of their larvae form to grow their adult appearance. So I would expect to find many species in between, or at least some branches originating from these intermediate species. Or would you suggest it was fast evolution without many intermediate steps, instead of a gradual evolutionary process that took millions of years or longer with many intermediate species?

Well, every ancestor of a common ancestor is still a common ancestor. So the first biological cell should be a UCA. Or there had been multiple events where a biological cell formed.Now consider this: the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes (and bacteria) is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per cell generation. So any living unicell would produce around 300 exact clones on average before producing one mutated cell.Unicells capable of surviving and succelfully multplying, would leave many offspring around, unaltered and unchanged, populating the whole globe. What's stopping them?We should be able to find many unicell species from the beginning, that are plausible ancestors of plants as well as animals and fungi and insects, with indications that they are clones of the same UCA cell.But guess what. We find nothing of such type! UCA fails for sure.Even if mutation rates where 10 times higher in earlier days. Cells would still procuce 30 times more exact clones than mutated ones. The exact clones would always remain in majority, if all cells keep multiplying. No extinction event would wipe out the whole globe to rid it from all of the unicell species of the first era.So again, looking at data objectively, UCA is not very plausible.

You should remain silent, as you have nothing to contribute. No, we are talking about any UCA. Why does it need to be the last? First cells must have lived off of non-living material, don't you think? As being the first life, it had nothing else to feed on.Though I can imagine changing metabolism to feed on new sources, could cause faster reproduction. However, they would not be competing for the same resources then. Perhaps the "food" of the first life cells ran out anyway? I was clearly talking about the ratio between unaltered and mutated. Your point about absolute numbers does not really address my point. Hard to say, as we can only hypothesise what LUCA was like. Though I find it perculiar that the whole top part of the tree above fungi, insects, animals, etcetera, vanished without trace.We see many groups of species being able to survive relatively unaltered for hundreds of millions of years, around 1/10th or 1/20th of time since first life began. Crocodiles, snakes, spiders, musquitos, all existed in roughly the same form few hundred million years ago.So what happened to the whole branch leading upto the latest common ancestor of all mammals? The whole lineage of gradual changes, from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, from egg hatching to placental birth, from horizontal spine movement to vertical (and those are just the obvious changes), and side branches, all vanished without trace again? So much, that we can only guess and hypothesise about the order in which all these changes gradually happened. And why so many drastic changes happened to be all occuring in the same lineage, does not really fit the "random" mutation narrative.Same as we see how so many beneficial mutations just happen to be in the lineage of the single primate group with fused chromosomes. Not very likely, under the model that any drastic mutation could happen in any of the many primate groups.
And the first primate with fused chromosomes left no unaltered descendents or descendents with only minor alterations, still showing most resemblance to the primate group before fusion, more than to human appearance today.Common ancestry fails on every level, to match with observable data. No, for discussing how likely or how plausible common descent is, we can just look at all observations, objectively. There is no complete falsification that works for everybody. People can always tweak and adjust model assumptions and parameters, so that it somehow fit observations in their model. That's the problem with theory of common descent. It's basically a reasonable narrative, full of hypothesese of how things came to be.It may somewhat explain just the changes in adult form by random mutation, but it poorly explains the exact timing of cells, to initiate complete transformation in perfect unison, orgistrated in all the details of every transformed body part.

Do you have any concrete evidence of environmetnal harards that happened to kill off all UCA and all closely related UCA species, globally? That is cute, but UCA is still far from logical and plausible, if one really bothers to look at data and test hypotheses, instead of sheepishly conforming to mainstream narrative. What part of the data or arguments that I posted, is religious? You are ignored, as you make false claims about me. Or you are just not capable of doing anything but repeating some of same the evolutionist handbook arguments, no matter how irrelevant. Typical evolutionist fool! You think first life was not an ancestor of todays life? Or only ancestor of some of todays life? Tell me, where is my confusion? You do know, that a virus is not even biologically considered to be alive, do you? It's not even a cell. And it's a parasite that needs hosts for survival. Trees can be drawn with either side up or down or left or right. Examples are plenty. You just refuse to accept them, and twist the data to fit into your ad hoc narratives. And then you evolutionists claim that common ancestry of life is a fact, while it's highly dubious at best.Look at all the life systems that are present in todays species, for nervous system, oxygen distribution, food digestion, reproduction system, etc, also present in species of hundreds of millions of years ago. There is no sign of gradual improvement. All systems were fully present from start, in single celled species as well as in microfauna, upto all larger animals.The huge variety of all life systems is evidence for intelligent origin. If it all came from random mutation, we would find most life systems to share some similar ancestral template, not fine tuned to the exact needs of every single species alive, from the very start.