Theory Of Common Design

[john crawford]

Common shapes, common features, common characteristics, common physiologies, common organs and anatomical structures, common traits, and common genes all indicate and assure common design before any common descent, common origins and common ancestry can be assumed or inferred.

Instead of Intelligent Design, creationists should point to the COMMON DESIGN of species such as apes and humans as an explanation for their homologous morphologies. After all, it's only because of their common design that evolutionists are able to classify apes and humans in the same family tree to begin with.

In other words, the question to ask of evolutionists is whether they base their theories of observed COMMON DESIGN on assumptions and inferences of shared common descent and origins, or do they assume and infer the fact of COMMON DESIGN on the basis of observed common descent, shared ancestry and common origin of species?

 

[disciple777]

Common shapes, common features, common characteristics, common physiologies, common organs and anatomical structures, common traits, and common genes all indicate and assure common design before any common descent, common origins and common ancestry can be assumed or inferred.

Instead of Intelligent Design, creationists should point to the COMMON DESIGN of species such as apes and humans as an explanation for their homologous morphologies. After all, it's only because of their common design that evolutionists are able to classify apes and humans in the same family tree to begin with.

In other words, the question to ask of evolutionists is whether they base their theories of observed COMMON DESIGN on assumptions and inferences of shared common descent and origins, or do they assume and infer the fact of COMMON DESIGN on the basis of observed common descent, shared ancestry and common origin of species?

Homology is based on the natural control mechanisms. In the mammalian species, there are only 20 amino acids. Mzny of the functional proteins are common to rats as well as to humans. Structure and function demands this homology. This is uniquness of creation. The evolutionists jump here to claim OH" look this evolved from this and so on. Sameness is not the same as similarity.

 

[john crawford]

Homology is based on the natural control mechanisms. In the mammalian species, there are only 20 amino acids. Mzny of the functional proteins are common to rats as well as to humans. Structure and function demands this homology. This is uniquness of creation. The evolutionists jump here to claim OH" look this evolved from this and so on. Sameness is not the same as similarity.

Still, homologous structures and functions common to organisms are the basis of their being included in nested heirarchies and such organisms may be referred to by creationists as being of COMMON DESIGN.

Evolutionists don't like the word, DESIGN, because it implies a DESIGNER, yet they depend on the recognition of the COMMON DESIGN of organisms, and use it, in order to taxonomically place COMMONLY DESIGNED species in nested hierarchies in INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED phylogenetic trees.

Otherwise, the modern phylogenetic trees which Darwinists rely on may not be said to be INTELLIGENLY DESIGNED.