Not surprisingly, when the function of DNA was discovered, genetic analyses showed the same relationships between living things that had been inferred by anatomy, fossil evidence, and other data.
This paragraph is loaded with assumptions.
Assuming anatomy points to Evolution.
Assuming fossil evidence points to Evolution.
You’re just casually inserting them as if the assumptions should just be taken for granted.
And then assuming correlation of genetic and anatomic similarity is some big reveal of Evolution, which it isn’t. If there were no correlation, the assumption would simply be that Evolution does not conserve genomes, which instead become indiscernible noise, much the way ‘molecular clocks’ are now regarded.
This is how Evolution theory works. Evolution itself is really just a vague cosmological idea continually settling around a changing landscape of data. Once the data becomes fairly well known (e.g. general fossil trends throughout the geologic column) evolutionists then magically adopt it as “their data”... then make predictions based off of that data, and then call the successful predictions confirmation of Evolution.
When Evolution’s predictions fail (such as with molecular clocks) then it’s just chalked up to the progress of science. And finally, evolutionists then re-equate Evolution with science itself, and so even its failed predictions become absorbed as a strange sort of confirmation.
But we know that only common descent accounts for genetic relatedness. And we can test this by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.
I'm having trouble locating an argument here.
You can’t even account for genetics to begin with. You’re trying to explain the origin of mountains by their erosion rates. Common descent is degradation over time. Nothing about observed mechanisms suggest upwards creative momentum or the assembly of fundamentally distinct and functional body plans.
Of course the theistic evolutionist can just say ‘God did it’, but I’m not sure where that gets you here. Either way you’re just making huge assumptions that seem to run a lot more self-evidently counter to observation than in harmony with it.
And here, you confuse homologous structures with analogous structures. Our forelimbs are very unlike the forelimbs of a horse. They are homologous; the same bones are in each of our limbs, although greatly modified to different purposes.
So they are similar bones with similar molecular structures governing those bones. Similar things are similar.
The wings of pterosaurs and wings of bats are analogous; they are very similar, but are derived from different tissues. This is why anyone with even a slight familiarity with biology finds your argument to be absurd.
So they are different tissues with different molecular structures governing those tissues. Dissimilar things are dissimilar.
You are putting words in my mouth to try and win an argument I never made. I never brought up homology or analogy. Those are loaded terms that assume evolution is true, but then again that is all you are doing, assuming evolution is true. I'm just under no obligation to accept those assumptions and I actually reject them entirely.
Evolution has no moral or theological implications whatever. It's just the way this world works. You might was well say gravity supports deism or pantheism.
Yea, Evolution has no moral or theological implications except for a denial of the fundamental works of the God of the Bible. The God of Israel seems to have a rather jealous desire for his people to believe in Him and what He has done.
Let God be true and all men liars.
