@SW-User
lol it's hardly a stock response. It's only the second time i've posted it and only because this same person made the same claim and then failed to even step up to the plate.
The fact that there is similarity in kinds, similarity in skulls, similarity in DNA does not point to a common ancestor, but a common designer
So obviously wrong. Let me tell you why.
The notion that a common designer explains phylogeny falls flat on it's face for a number of reasons.
One is that this designer must have been creating suboptimal designs. Take cetaceans for example. They need to come to the surface in order to breath or they will die. When they're born they must make a desperate break for the surface and they don't always make it. Why do that when god has already made perfectly good gills? Fish don't have that problem at all.
Your answer must be "God works in mysterious ways".
Unsatisfying, unscientific and without any predictive ability.What does evolution say? Whales evolved from land going mammals which must breathe air.
Let's stay on cetaceans. Why do cetaceans in their embryonic development form hind legs for a little while before being resorbed? What
possible reason is there for that design?
Your answer must be "God works in mysterious ways".
Unsatisfying, unscientific and without any predictive ability.Again evolution as an intuitive, logical answer: cetaceans evolved from land going animals with hind legs. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Continuing on cetaceans, the common designer fantasy continues to be a non-starter when we notice that a whale has the same bones in it's flipper as a squirrel has in it's paw, a human has in its hand or a bird has in its wing. Any engineering student would get a failing grade for adding so many unnecessary points of potential failure. Any engineering student would receive a failing grade for using the same design in something meant to climb as something meant to swim.
Is god stupid?
Your answer must be "God works in mysterious ways".
Unsatisfying, unscientific and without any predictive ability.Once more, evolution has all the explanatory power. These animals all share a common ancestor in which these bone existed and from which each adapted the already existing bones to their individual niche.
And that brings us back to the skulls and why common design is just a piss poor attempt cling to a religious dogma in the face of evidence.
These skulls show not just similarity which the indoctrinated might attribute to a common designer but a
progression of features in order through geologic time with each step being a mosaic of features. That is to say that they show qualities of ancestral animals and qualities of more derived animals.
Which is exactly what we would expect to see if they evolved over time. Over and over and
over again, evolution keeps giving us a consistent,
logical answer to each problem.
....and predictably,
pitifully, once again,
Your answer must be "God works in mysterious ways.
Unsatisfying, unscientific and without any predictive ability.Ok bud, gimme your best shot. Please respond with a specific argument and not a general hand-waving denial.
Aaaand go!
