[allmendream]

“Darwinism is also based on a system of classification based on the logical fallacy that animals which appear similar must be related because all species share a common ancestor”

Then please explain why “New World” vultures and “Old World” vultures appear similar but are not classified as being closely related.

For someone who purports to have studied Biology your statement betrays a fundamental ignorance of even the basics.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Darwinism says they are related because everything is related, but there is no proof of this. It's just an assumption. In fact there is no proof they are related at all.

If you say that the theory of evolution does not rest upon the assumption of universal common descent of all living creatures, then you are the one who is ignorant of the basic fundamentals of the theory, not me. Without assuming that all animals are descended from one common ancestor, then there is no reason to assume that any of them have common ancestors.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The reason the vultures can look alike but not be related is the same reason why anything can look alike without being related. Unrelated species look similar because they have adapted the same way to the same environment.

Again, Darwinism says they ARE related. How closely is irrelevant. Animals adapt to their environment, but they don't change into other animals.

Vultures only give birth to other vultures. A Vulture will never give birth to a anything other than another vulture.