Shared design is not the same thing as shared ancestry. An evolutionist naturally sees all life from the framework of evolution. He interprets data from that standpoint. He sees similar chromosomes in apes and humans and draws the conclusion of shared ancestry. The data itself is indisputable, but the conclusion is pure conjecture. Is that conclusion the only one?<\/p>\n
The data also indicates shared design, not shared ancestry. For example, rival software makers share the same pull-down menu structure as the Windows operating system. Does that prove that Windows evolved into those programs? The similarity of design indicates that software programmers have found the design useful in their applications.<\/p>\n
A similarity between apes and humans does not indicate evolution. It does infer a re-use of a perfectly good design element adapted in a different model. Honda continues to build it’s passenger vehicles on four wheels just like Toyota does simply because it’s good design.<\/p>\n
What Do You Think?<\/strong><\/p>\n a. When you find that two things are similar, do you automatically think they had the same source, like two cups of a different design, two plates of a different design, or two forks of different designs? Why or why not?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Shared design is not the same thing as shared ancestry. An evolutionist naturally sees all life from the framework of evolution. He interprets data from that standpoint. He sees similar chromosomes in apes and humans and draws the conclusion of … Continue reading