Does similarity between different species necessarily mean that they're physically related through evolution?

Question

From a completely neutral point of view (one in which you do not have enough clear evidence to choose evolution over creation or vice versa) does the evidence that there is a great deal of similarity between different species not simply indicate that all life came from the same source. The fact that all life came from the same source does not exclude evolution or creation. A supremely wise and loving creator can just as likely be that single source as a region of the Earth where conditions are ripe for the evolutionary birth of life. What do you think?

Answer 1

There are some things that we c an all agree on. There is a numbered amount of materials in the universe, we are all made of the same chemicals/compounds/metals etc. We can also agree that at a lower level (atomic/subatomic) everything in the universe is made of the same few things (atoms/electron/quarks/strings etc.), so my question becomes this. What force guides matter at the subatomic level. What tells this group of atoms to form a diamond molecule and the other to form water, or a feather. What tells the atomic structure of rubber to bounce and concrete to, well, to NOT!

To me, to deny the idea of intelligent design is much more of a leap than to accept the obvious, evident truth all around us that although chaos exists all around us, if you look deep enough there is most definitely order and intelligence in the universe. God may not be the man in the Bible but God most definitely rules the universe at the atomic level.....so, no, similarities between species means nothing more than that, similarities....

Answer 2

It's absolutely possible that one could imagine a creator that created millions of slightly different species, changing them gradually over millions of years to create what we see in the fossil record.

What the creation hypothesis doesn't explain, but evolution does, is the exact pattern of similarity that we see - what is known as the nested hierarchy. That is, all great apes share certain characteristics with the next highest level - Old World monkeys - which in turn all fall under (skipping a few levels) mammals, which in turn all fall under vertebrates, which in turn fall under chordates, and so on. You don't find mammals that aren't vertebrates, or apes that aren't mammals. This pattern of descent is a massive confirmation of evolutionary theory.

What's even more interesting is that this pattern is duplicated at the DNA level - it's a twin nested hierarchy. If you look at the differences between different organisms, you can see that all the apes have DNA that is more similar among themselves than any of them are to mice. And, of course, apes are closer to mice than either is to fish, and all three are closer to each other than they are to trees.

But this didn't have to happen. Many of the gene sequences that differ between mice and apes produce proteins that do the same thing - so the one group of apes could have used some of the mice proteins, and the other one could use the fish proteins. The fact that we don't see this, but rather the pattern of descent based on morphology (ie body plan) matches the pattern of descent based on genetics, is another huge confirmation of evolution.

Answer 3

No. Based on the fact that structure and function are related, similarity of structure may not indicate relatedness if creatures are adapted for the same task. Not being an ornithologist, Darwin misidentified the finches that bear his name for other birds based on body and beak shape.

Yes. If you ignore the evidence, it's a coin flip to decide if the diversity of life and the relative similarity of some groups are a function of creation or evolution.

Answer 4

The similarity between species is a very small indicator of evolution. There is no one part of science that shows evolution to be true. there are many, many pieces that all add up to one answer: evolution. And since all the different parts of science point toward evolution, it is by far the best explanation.

The similarity between species is just another piece of the science puzzle.

Answer 5

Not sure what you mean by similarities between species. Life on Earth seems very, very diverse to me. I guess it depends upon your viewpoint (which is perfectly valid by the way).

Answer 6

I like your question. I would like to believe that life was painted by the same artist using the same paints to produce the picture (life). I do find it hard to believe that a canvas (the earth) could paint it's self.