[Dimensio]

You say it teaches that the existing diverse life on earth originated from common ancestry. Very well. By what process, I ask? By a mechanism which no one has ever seen in action, no one can explain, for which no evidence exists, etc...?

No, by mutation coupled with selective pressures favouring certain emerging traits. Who told you that the mechanism can't be explained or has never been seen in action? Mutations and natural selection have both been observed.

If you propose this irrational explanation, why should I or anyone else believe what you say regarding what evolution supposedly does or doesn't say about the origin of life?

What is irrational about the explanation besides your assertion that it is irrational and your denial of actual observed events?

Where did the common ancestral life forms come from? Did they evolve too?

The procesess by which the original life forms emerged was not evolution, because evolution can only occur when life exists. It is an important question in biology, and research is being done in the field, but ultimately how those first life forms came to exist does not in any way affect the validity of the theory of evolution. They could have been molecules forming chains due to simple chemistry, they could have been interdimensional aliens seeding the planet, they could have been zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent or time-travelling humans from the future could have placed them and the theory of evolution does not change one bit.

[music_code]

No, by mutation coupled with selective pressures favouring certain emerging traits. Who told you that the mechanism can't be explained or has never been seen in action? Mutations and natural selection have both been observed.

Mutations have been observed, and in 99.9% of all cases they prove harmful to the organism. Natural selection by itself makes no new things. It is actually the permanent loss of information. It is not the creative, uphill, limitless process imagined by Darwin.