God made animals according to their kind,thats why you see similarities within classes.Ive explained this.Ive explained common descent is true only to an extent.
This does not work for several reasons:
1. The nested heirarchy pattern Mallon described. Humans make cars "according to their kind" and their are similarities between cars from different manufacturers. BUT, you
cannot classify cars in a nested hierarchy.
2. The "similarities within classes" breaks down when we start looking at the details. Let me provide just one example: sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins. All have a very similar body plan: narrow head, sharp teeth, forefins, and a finned tail. All occupy similar ecological niches. But now we get to the details of that tail and the swimming motion. Sharks and ichthyosaurs have a vertical fin and swim by swinging the back half of their body from side to side. Dolphins have a horizontal tail fin and swim with a modified running motion. If you are postulating God directly manufacturing these species, then there is no reason why dolphins should have a swimming motion that is a
modified running motion. The only explanation that makes sense is that dolphins are descended from land animals.
3. Phylogenetic analysis. We can now routinely sequence large amounts of DNA. If your idea of "separate kinds" is correct, when we compare DNA sequences from widely different species or within the separate "kinds", those DNA sequences should represent
independent observations. OTOH, if common ancestry is completely true, then DNA sequences from worms, corn, humans, flies, etc. should all be related by
historical connections. What's the result?
"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.
What this means is that any notion of separately created kinds is shown to be false.
You ignored again my question regarding lucys intelligence and how on earth you can tell how intelligent she was?
You look at the 1) the size and shape of the brain from the skull and 2) any artifacts you find associated with the fossils. In this case A. afarensis has the brain shape and size of a chimp. That gives them the intelligence of a chimp. Nor are there any stone tools associated with A. afarensis. Stone tools do not appear until H. habilis when the brain size is 50% larger.
You would think that almighty God would make our origins understandable to EVERYONE,
God did in His Creation! It is understandable to everyone who has done a bit of work to understand His Creation. Do not blame Mallon or God because you have not taken the effort to listen to God and study what you need to in order to understand the evidence God left us.