For honest response and debate only:?

Question

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Can someone speak more specifically to the origins of life from the evolutionary perspective: How did life begin from dead matter without the help of a Creator? I'm comprehending the realities of microevolution but remain mystified by the premise of macroevolution.

Answer 1

Of course. Just as masterful art critics and appraisers can look at an unsigned art piece, and because of their expertise on certain artists can judge by the technique, age, subject matter, and brush strokes with relative certainty that 'this painting was by so and so.' All a particular artist's works tend to have earmarks showing a 'common creator.'

Answer 2

Similarities in design -neither- prove a common creator -nor- a common ancestor. An example would be: dolphins have fins, and so do sharks. However, dolphins are mammals, and sharks are fish. These clearly don't have a common ancestor.
Two cakes may look the same, but may be baked by two different people.

Microevolution (intraspecies adaptation between a few generations) is easily observable.
Macroevolution (interspecies adaptation spanning many generations, and thousands of years) is difficult to observe and test.

Answer 3

The horse and the donkey have similarities because they have a common ancestor. They can mate and have offspring (a mule) but that offspring is a hybrid and infertile. So they are related but different species.

A dolphin has a similar shape to a fish, but that's because of evolution. It's not proof of a creator, because an intelligent creator would make sure that a dolphin that never leaves the water would be able to breathe water. It can't, because it evolved from a land-dwelling mammal that was already too specialized to evolve gills.

Answer 4

Not necessarily. Commonality of form is based on commonality of function.

For example, there are only so many forms a quadruped can take that are efficient and enable them to find food and avoid being killed by predators. The less efficient designs are hunted out of existence, leaving only the more efficient ones to reproduce.

On the other hand, the erect stance of Homo Sapiens is actually rather inefficient, with regards to stresses on the structures. The spinal column is better suited as a suspension bridge (as in a quadruped) than a pole (as in a biped). However, the ability to use our opposable thumbs to their highest advantage outweighed the structural deficiencies that turning the spinal column upright created.

If God had intelligently designed humans in their current form, I would have thought He would have found a better way to ease back stress.

Answer 5

It's infinitely more probable that the similarities between different animals are caused by the fact that they're adapting to similar environments. That also explains why animals in vastly different environments are very different (compare deep sea fish with monkeys, for example), whereas your 'theory' would suggest all animals should be similar.

Answer 6

If it proves anything it proves a common origin. The debate comes in because no one can decide what that origin is, a mythical creator or biological accident

Answer 7

I suppose the creator part could be rationalized, but common ancestors can actually be proven with fossil evidence.

Answer 8

You might be interested in learning about retroviruses and how they affect DNA. This shows that evolution is very plausible, and is something that the creation theory can not dispute with any accuracy.

Answer 9

Of course! And that doesn't mean poor imagination either. Like an artist signs his work, so God signs His work.

Answer 10

Believe in the possibility of anything & everything, and all will become clear in time.

: )