We find pieces that bear a strong family resemblance.
I've done a little study of my own. I found that a yugo shares many of the same functions as a Honda Civic. They both have four wheels, a motor, a steering wheel, a gas pedal, a brake, headlights, etc. In fact, I'm sure that they share more than a 15% homology.
I have concluded that long ago, a steel mill blew up and over billions of years, yugos evolved. After another billion years, Honda Civics have evolved from yugos. If we carry this evolution even farther, we get a Hummer!
Actually, up to the "steel mill blowing up", you're not too far off track. Cars can be classed in families, where certain models borrow features from others. The difference between automotive design evolution and Darwinian evolution is that different features will be adopted across lines of descent.
That is, if Subaru comes up with an ultrasound obstacle locator, and it's well accepted (selected for), Nissan, Toyota, Chevy, Ford, and BMW will all produce cars that have the same or a similar feature.
In the case of biological organisms, we can follow the spread of innovations and modifications only along lines of descent. We don't see, for example, one sea creature developing a lung, and the same design of lung appearing in the next model year in unrelated other sea creatures.
The problem with the "exploding steel mill" analogy is that we've never observed a steel mill explosion forming machined parts. We have seen complex molecules, including amino acids and nucleotide bases, form as the result of simpler compounds bashing together in a mixture.
All organisms share some sort of homology. If one function is to be performed (like the cleaving of GTP), it would make sense that God used a very similar-looking molecule to accomplish the task.
Why not identical? Why the millions of slight differences, arranged in a way that's beautifully explained by assuming millions of years of descent with slight modifications? Why not any of an effectively infinite number of other arrangements?
Evolution has an answer. IDIOTs don't.
While this article discusses protein similarities, the question still remains: what is the MECHANISM of the change? How long did it take? Is anyone in control of it?
Those are actually valid questions. Especially the first one.
I believe that God has taken these bits and pieces and put them together to create distinct organisms.
OK, how? By what mechanism did God take these bits and pieces and put them together? We've seen factories. We've watched them work. We've watched them being built and re-tooled. The only mechanism we've EVER seen putting simple organic molecules together into proteins and amino acids is the blind combining and re-combining in accord with the laws of physics and chemistry.
If you choose to believe that these laws were designed by a Designer who expected intelligent life as the inevitable result, be my guest. But this does not rule out naturalistic evolution.
These organisms all share the same building blocks and need to perform some of the same functions, so of course some of the molecules will look similar. This is analagous to the car example. A Honda Civic shares a lot of the same parts with a Honda Accord. It does not mean one "evolved" from the other, it means they had the same DESIGNER!
This argument would have a lot more weight if a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord DID have the same designer. However, I'll just bet you that they had different designers. (Indeed, there's a small chance that the two design teams had no members in common, but I wouldn't bet on that.)
In addition, I can pretty much guarantee that the Honda Civic and the Toyota Tercel had different designers. Do we assume a different God for each "kind" (whatever one of those is)?
Think about it. If God didn't design this world and its inhabitants so that they would be somewhat similar, it wouldn't function the way it does. Just because things have similarities does not mean that they were not designed that way on purpose. If God didn't use the same 20 amino acids to make up all the proteins in this world, we wouldn't be able to eat anything.
If all life hadn't evolved from a single common ancestor, it would't function the way it does. Living things wouldn't have the similarities and the slight differences we see if they hadn't undergone eons of descent with modification.
And we have the ability to break down amino acids into their component parts, and use these parts to build others as needed. All that's required in a human diet is eight "essential" amino acids. Cats require at least one extra -- taurine. Why didn't the designer simply set up all life to use the same basic "kit" of amino acids?
The design of this world is so intricate and ingenious that I am in awe. I can't reconcile the word "accident" with the things I see happening in the human body, let alone the interworkings of the world with its inhabitants and the inhabitants with each other.
Your privilege. Again, real scientists doing real work in the field don't care what you can or cannot reconcile.
The problem is that this doesn't happen by accident. It involves learning and application of that knowledge by intelligent beings.
The problem with the "exploding steel mill" analogy is that we've never observed a steel mill explosion forming machined parts. We have seen complex molecules, including amino acids and nucleotide bases, form as the result of simpler compounds bashing together in a mixture.
We've also never observed a "big bang" forming planets, stars, or galaxies. Some folks just assume it happened. We've never seen a steel mill explosion forming machined parts because the laws of entropy would prevent it. Why can we then assume that an explosion of dirt would form biological machinery far more intricate and complicated than any machine we could build. Logic seems to have eluded the evolutionists.
Also, the only time we have seen aa's and nucleotides form from simpler molecules is when we (as intelligent beings) have manipulated the environment and introduced catalysts that we're not sure even existed.
Let's for the sake of argument assume that is was possible for nucleotides AND amino acids to form in earth's "primordial" environment. The problem you encounter then is that the nucleotides have to form an RNA molecule (at least that's the current theory, until it changes again with the wind) which is unstable unless coated with protein. Where's the protein? It hasn't been made yet. The RNA would have to quickly catalyze a reaction that put enough aa's together to form a protective coating before it denatured.
Too many things would have to happen simultaneously for this to occur. There are too many highly unlikely obstacles for this theory to overcome. Evolutionists seem to think that the ultimate catalyst is time, that given enough time even the most unlikely events could occur.
Why not identical? Why the millions of slight differences, arranged in a way that's beautifully explained by assuming millions of years of descent with slight modifications?
Because organisms need to live in a variety of habitats and environments. For a given function (GTP cleaving), it may be that each different arrangement gives the protein optimum function in different environments (pH differences, temperature differences, etc.). God also knew that the earth would change and that animals would need to adapt, so he made that possible by introducing as much variation as we see today.
By what mechanism did God take these bits and pieces and put them together? We've seen factories. We've watched them work. We've watched them being built and re-tooled. The only mechanism we've EVER seen putting simple organic molecules together into proteins and amino acids is the blind combining and re-combining in accord with the laws of physics and chemistry.
Factories are beside the point (except that they support my theory because it is intelligent life that runs and operates these things). The only reason we see these molecules forming from "blind" recombination is because we, as intelligent beings, put just the right chemicals, the right amounts of these chemicals, and the right catalysts into this mixture. We don't know what type of mixture existed in the past. Some assume that the mixture we used is the one that existed ONLY BECAUSE it is the mixture that worked. It proves nothing.
If you choose to believe that these laws were designed by a Designer who expected intelligent life as the inevitable result, be my guest. But this does not rule out naturalistic evolution.
No it doesn't. I never said it did. I'm just providing examples of how it *might not be* naturalistic evolution for the benefit of those who are so sold out to the idea of naturalistic evolution that their logic seems to have stopped functioning.
This argument would have a lot more weight if a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord DID have the same designer.
They did... HONDA.
In addition, I can pretty much guarantee that the Honda Civic and the Toyota Tercel had different designers. Do we assume a different God for each "kind" (whatever one of those is)?
All cars have the same designer: man. Intelligent beings. Some people do believe that there is a different god for each kind. I choose to believe that ONE God did all of this because He has written a book about it and I know beyond all doubt in my own heart that He is very much alive today. He has done some things in my life and in the lives of my friends that I can't even fathom. If you had the same experiences, you would know it too.
As far as the definition of a "kind" (when referring to organisms), a 3 year old could tell you that a dog is different from a cat is different from a horse. If you put a picture of a coyote, a bobcat, and a mule side by side, a child could tell you that they are different kinds. A child would also know that a coyote, a wolf, and a dingo are all the same kind.
If all life hadn't evolved from a single common ancestor, it would't function the way it does. Living things wouldn't have the similarities and the slight differences we see if they hadn't undergone eons of descent with modification.
What makes this statement any more valid than mine? We reach two different conclusions from the same evidence. Both are equally valid. Is it just because your view is more widely accepted? The earth was once thought to be flat, and those who said it was round were laughed at.
I'm not trying to disprove naturalistic evolution; I don't think either theory will ever by proven or disproven. I'm just trying to get the robots to recognize that there might be another option they should consider. We all know what happens when people ASS-U-ME things...
And we have the ability to break down amino acids into their component parts, and use these parts to build others as needed. All that's required in a human diet is eight "essential" amino acids. Cats require at least one extra -- taurine. Why didn't the designer simply set up all life to use the same basic "kit" of amino acids?
And we can break down cars (that were designed and created by intelligent life) into their component parts and put them back together to form different machines.
If God had made all creatures so that they would use the same "kit" of aa's, then the intricate food web we see would not exist. Nature would not function the way it does. Nature functions so well because organisms are able to find niches, and many niches are available based solely on the nutritional requirements of the organisms.
God is far more intelligent than you give Him credit for. When He is at His dumbest, He is still smarter than you and I.
Your privilege. Again, real scientists doing real work in the field don't care what you can or cannot reconcile.
So molecular biology is not a real science? I don't study evolutionary biology, but I am studying molecular biology, and I do work in the field. I don't have my Post-hole Digger (Ph.D.) yet, but I'm working on it.