Some would say a common designer. You have to admit the system works quite well considering. My thought might be if we all evolved from something, wouldn't there be massive differences in systems like this?
Not if the system evolved in a common ancestor, then it would likely have no reason to change.
If the same system evolved separately, we would expect there to be changes; if there weren't, that would be a point for intelligent design, not evolution theory, unless there was an explanation for why it could only evolve that way.
Squids have eyes, just like mammals, and they are pretty effective, too. However, whereas the first layer in our eyes are nerve bundles, the first layer in a squid eye are the receptors. Our eyes are quite similar to squid eyes, their retina has just got a different order of layers.
An evolutionist would say that this is because their eyes evolved separately from our eyes. What's the creationist explanation for this? Wouldn't God rather create the same system twice, then invent a new one that has the exact same function and even mechanism?
Actually I thought about this a bit. There are dozens of muscles in our face that are connected to points alone our skulls, each helping with our facial expressions. The fact that some can use them independently enough to wiggle their ears is just an extra.
You can look those muscles up in a diagram. The auricular muscles, as they are called, are fairly separate from the other facial muscles. They can't change the facial expression, at all, even when used together with the other muscles. They are useless for us, basically.
Again, this speaks of design. I posted a link on a reply to another poster you may find interesting. Do you know that that supposed "pelvis" isn't even attached to the spine?
I've read about it, now. It doesn't necessarily speak of design, as it still makes sense with evolution.
I can't comment on this right now, because I lack knowledge of the field, and because I don't have the time to read up whether this really makes sense. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I don't know yet.
This shifting would've destroyed a lot of these fossils, but another way to look at it would be as evidence for a world wide flood. Especially considering most of these fossils are found hundreds of miles from any body of water.
Who says that most fossils weren't destroyed? That still doesn't mean some couldn't have survived.
That the bodies of water move, too, is nothing new. Compare a map of the world as it looked like 100 million years ago with a recent map.
Again, they do not. Macro-evolution involves say a horse eventually turning into a dog. Something along those lines. There is no evidence for this, but people try to push it as a logical step when its a leap of faith.
It has never been directly observed, that is true, but there have been multiple species that are thought to have underwent it, so it's not as far fetched as you claim. The Gray Treefrog and the Cope's Gray Treefrog come to mind. Both species are very similar, but have a different number of chromosome pairs.
What is important is that macroevolution is just microevolution which results in the affected individuals becoming another species. In the case of the Gray Treefrog, it simply means that one set of larvaes had another pair of chromosomes and couldn't breed with the Cope Gray Treefogs. There is no mechanism would prevent such a thing.
There is nothing in genetics that would allow for this type of change. There are natural limiters in place.
For example? What are these limiters?
It's not magic, its God. I have no problem saying my view is religious, but evolutionists do.
Because such claims are untestable, and unfalsifiable.
EDIT:
I just found this. Apparently, speciation has been observed, multiple times.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
This article deals with the same thing. It's easier to understand, but I'm not sure if it's correct.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/