Some mammals have no teeth but they still possess the gene for tooth enamel. Why did God include this? Can evolution better account for this gene? [Spirituality & Religion]
The creationist often likes to ascribe genetic similarity to a common designer; the potter using the same clay, as it were. That this imposes human limits on god notwithstanding, why would god (as a perfect designer) include tooth enamel genes in animals like baleen whales with no teeth?
Of course evolution tells us that baleen whales evolved from land-going mammals and amphibious mammals like ambulocetus which of course had teeth. Same again for any other toothless animal like a platypus.
This is a bit of a gotcha question, i admit but it does present a good example of what i identify as the flaw in the "common designer" explanation for shared DNA.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
I got questions related to how Baleen whales evolved from a land animal, according to evolution :v If they evolved from a particular animal and we KNOW what that animal is speculated to be, are there any intermediate fossils or anything that shows step by step any evidence what the mutations it took to get to that point are? :V
Cuz I always understood the idea and I can see how it would come together but I quite haven't actually seen any chain of fossils with clear evidence that the mutations of one animal came with priori
Also, it's really presumptuous for any creationist to say [quote]the potter using the same clay, as it were[/quote] about God without evidence. If they really believe in God, one cannot say this but must quote it from God. If it came from God, so be it. If it came from us, that's a human imagination at work. Drawing out the reason behind a question is like drawing the target for why an arrow was shot in the first place.
