For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The evolutionists had similar ideas about baby embryos too. E.g. the developing stages of an apparent tail, gills and a yolk sac. The so-called yolk sac as we know, is the source of the human embryo's first blood cells, it was never a "yolk sac". The so-called gills, were not gill slits like a fish, they were wrinkles in the skin where the "throat pouches" grow out. They develop into the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.
The so-called tail was just the tail bone (coccyx). It's an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture and for other things....(I won't go into).
It should come as no surprise then that similar is being suggested about snakes and whales, but is it accurate?
The hind limbs are used during mating and serve to grasp during locomotion. I wonder how they would handle not having any grip function? What may appear to be legs or "leftovers", seems instead to be a very necessary function rather than "apparent vestigials. Modern pythons have a rudimentary hindlimb, usually little more than a "claw" of cartilage tipped with bone that they use during mating and occasional fighting. There are distinct lizards and distinct snakes in the fossil record and alive today. Just like every other group that supposedly shares a common ancestor. I am not sure, given all the incredible varieties of animals that you can be certain evolution is responsible.
Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically.
Closely related, does not automatically = evolution. I have no problem at all with this Linda, because a common designer cannot be ruled out. I guess we can argue that point in neverending circles. A lion and a tiger can mate and produce offspring, but they're usually sterile off-spring. Even they have just enough gaps to cause problems. I consider all creatures a product of common design and I believe the means to allow for wide variation within each kind was already pre-programmed in the genetic code. Mating to exaggerate certain characteristics is not evolution. Just because there is a close similarity in genetics, does not mean one kind evolved into another. This is not proof for evolution, nor is the certain exaggeration of traits in certain environments. The vast information within the genetic code provides an amazing amount of diversity WITHIN each creature, but does not mean one kind of creature can become another. How does a lot of time make the difference? Just because anything sounds possible?
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function.
They are hardly new structures, the information already existed. I believe that within the genetic code is the information already there to allow for such incredible diversity and flexibility. Again, this does not prove one kind of animal becoming another (macro evolution). We don't see it happening and haven't so far.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
.
Linda, one thing you won't hear from an evolutionist is the remaining percentage that makes all the difference. The evolutionist tries to bridge the gaps as much as possible. See here, they have us believing that we are more than half similar to a fruit fly or a worm in our genetics. Actually the percentage that is different is a HUGE difference when it comes to all creatures. Even ONE small difference in percentage, makes a big impact. That's what makes us a completely different creature. Why do they do this? The same reason why they exaggerate the similarities between monkeys and humans. Yet even the small percentage of difference is exactly what makes them monkeys and us humans. This in no way contradicts a common designer.
You asked about DNA. The scientific idea about that at the moment is that it started as self-replicating molecules. It wasn't even necessarily essential for the first life, as long as some kind of basic way of replacing worn-out components was possible. If you want to learn more about abiogenesis then you're welcome to look in that thread.
DNA language is not the same as DNA molecule. Information cannot be considered in the catagory same as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself. The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica-an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual size-which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick-a teaspoon of DNA, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth.
Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this? How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident—by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.
Even the simplest single cell organism has, within its genes and chromosomes, about as much data as there are letters in the world's largest library - a trillion letters. NO way in the world could random processes organise that much data! Most lifeforms are comprised of billions of these complex cells which once again display themselves in perfect order. The mathematical impossibility of the human body being formed accidentally surpasses the logic of an explosion of a printing shop resulting in the formation of a dictionary.
The genetic code prevents one life form changing into another kind. So scientists speculate that mutations or damages to the DNA must be responsible for evolutionary processes. Again they believe this in spite of the observable evidence, that no new species has resulted from a mutation. Mutations are almost always harmful, they bring about small adjustments in a particular species, but no way are they able to change one kind of creature into another. Give me one example Linda of a mutation that created a new kind of creature?
By increasing the amount of time on history, and using a lot of complex language, suddenly these things can seem more credible and this is the key to evolution "Time" and "complex language" and lots of it. But no matter how much time you give an evolutionist it still does not solve their dilemma of exactly how life came into being in the first place.
For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions
Just because there are similarities in certain aspects of anatomy, does not = evolution. Rather they work well the way they were designed to work. If I create a model of something and it works well and I decide to make something else, I may use very similar methods on certain areas that are designed for a similar function. Whether it's limb or wing movement. How does this prove evolution Linda? It doesn't. It proves that a similarity of design in certain structures works well. Even the things human beings themselves create are often modelled on nature. Sounds like the creator got it right the first time.
You might end up eventually with a new species that looks like a cat. This would be speciation, which is evolution.
A new species? How does that work Linda? No matter how much breeding intervention to produce as much variety as possible with dogs, you end up with dogs. ....so far we've seen nothing different in all our history up to the present day. NO matter what adaptions take place, the creature remains exactly what it is. Whether it's a bird, a dog or a cat. I don't see one kind becoming another, I've never witnessed it happening, nobody in history has witnessed it happening. Why aren't we seeing this?
