Now, as for mammals,the similarities in skull morphology are also hugely evident:
A surprising amount of common origin there, with differences only in the functionality. Worse still, increasing differences in these structures correspond to distance in evolutionary time. So mammals appear to come from reptiles also.
Here's a better diagram still of morphological change in the jaw with increasing evolutionary time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Let me know when you've reviewed them. Why did God make two kinds of jaws, one with a large dentary and one in which the length of the jaw is split between the dentary and the angular? And why does the relative proportion of each bone in the jaw keep changing with geological time? Maybe God realised His initial design was no good, and modified it over time? But I'd thought He created each organism independently! How can this be? One might as well just cry "Magic!"
It is special. Why would it not be special?
Because you have no evidence of God, or any other creator. Hence the process, while remarkable, is the outcome of process that seem incredible but are actually mundane - as in,
of the world.
You disagree? Very well:
Prove God. You insist on Him, so I must believe in good faith that you have a reason for doing so. Share that reason with us. If you prefer aliens, so be it. Just demonstrate that they were here a billion years ago, and then every day since to help modify evolution along the path you think was engineered.
Already answered that. Anything, be it a god or an alien species, that have figured out the spark of life will have figured out engineering long before. Recycling, replaceable parts, those are basic engineering principles. It is the smart thing to do.
You have answered nothing, again: you have not explained why the DNA of a bat resembles other Mammals rather than birds. Both fly. Why are bats so different? Were they made by other alien species, or just by the Devil? How is a heterogenous mix of organisms that fly smart?
I did not fail to notice that you did not reply that it was not the smart thing to do.
Good for you! I was hoping you might indeed not fail to notice that. Let's see what you have to say about it:
You made a theological argument that it would make the creation less 'special'. That's because we both know that the mystery of life is hard to crack. It would take someone smart to do it. And we expect someone smart to do it the smart way, and the smart way is the way it was done.
Of course! Absolutely! All life is made
smart! The smart way! With recycled materials, and nothing left over or unused that might conceivably impact - sometimes literally - the health of the carrier organism, or represent some ancient purpose that obviously could never be.
Like wisdom teeth, appendixes, vestigial limbs in snakes and whales, eyes in subterranean or cave-dwelling creatures, and atavisms that recapitulate an evolutionary past that clearly never was. And, last of all:
extinction. All of the Earth's organisms were created so perfectly -
smart-way, I think you said - that
none have
ever gone extinct, because in doing so they would - conceivably - illustrate some kind of flaw in the relative
smartness of the plan. And that cannot be. So huzzah!
Though I tend to think that tending mammoth herds would be a chore. One can only distantly imagine the kind of shoveling job they might require, although I think you tangentially embrace the concept in your metaphorical travels on this thread.
You are now left grasping at straws in a theological argument that is clearly out of your depth. You sure you wanna go down this road?
Of course, Dorothy. What - are the flying monkeys on their way?
Since your argument is essentially theological, allow me a theological answer to it.
Isaiah 55:8-9. That you believe yourself to be apt to judge God's behavior as if He was a simple human like you is not merely ridiculous. It is actually beyond contempt.
Good: then you will spare me yours also? You are attempting, garbonzo, to promote a supernatural explanation for life. If you wish to do so, you must demonstrate its supernatural impact. You have not done so. Nor has anyone. You cannot play hop-scotch across the naturalistic line, first claiming that DNA fits into an creationist narrative in order to justify your selective incredulity, and then claiming in the next paragraph that one is not fit to judge the maker of that process, because it would be beyond contempt to do so. Whatever you wish to believe in the privacy of your own head is your own business, but this is the natural world.
Pay attention to the argument, if you will. Nobody is ever saying that there isn't evidence for common ancestry. As I said myself, DNA itself fits equally well in any creation narrative, including Evolution. However, Science does not run on 'for' evidence. Science runs on lack of counter-evidence, and every single instance of 'convergent evolution' is a counter-evidence for common ancestry.
Pay attention to the concepts, for a change. Convergent evolution is
not counter-evidence to common ancestry. If you disagree,
present your evidence, please. Further, DNA certainly does
not fit into a fairy-tale of creation where each organism is created without reference to any other, instead of increasing sequence distance being correlated with increasing morphological and geological distance between taxonomic groups. That latter fact would suggest descent from some common ancestor. That fits well so far as
I am concerned, but I trust that its working out well for me is not what you meant by 'fitting equally well in any creation narrative'.
Ah, yes, the good old bait and switch. The statement is partially true, but I make a point of reading every word.
Oh, if only that were so, you would have attributed the statement to
Fraggle, who made it, and not in your response to
me. This is an annoying practice. Please desist. Nonetheless, I will take a moment to fisk it.
It is true, the 2nd law does not rule out life, as if it did, we would not exist. But it does rule out evolution. A local reduction in entropy requires a greater increase in entropy of the external environment.
Care to explain how that happened?
Care to explain how the above makes sense? First, you give lip service to the Second Law, then forget the fact of its continuous, ongoing input into the system, as if you had made some kind of comparison in relative entropy between lifeless and life-filled areas of this planet. What has this even to
do with evolution? Nonsense.