Ping!
PS be sure to read the part about apoptosis. I never knew the integral part that apoptosis plays in the formation of the human hand. Needless to say, the process involved is the antithesis of one that would develop by chance plus survival.
All the best—GGG
The process is governed by the laws of physics, chemistry and natural selection.
As with most ICR articles the author relies on over simplifications.
Please refer to this site for a comparison of phenotype in embryogenesis 2,445 with 6,797 annotations complete with references. Please analyze them and give us your comparative study showing how thousands of geneticists are wrong.
Why?
(Apparently that's "needless" to explain too.)
Along that line, it's interesting, and typical, how vague this article is. Aside from the general gee whiz stuff, there is nothing of substance. Literally the only "argument" is a general, arm-waving assertion that design can account for genetic similarities.
Sure it could, but so can common descent.
So the natural thing to do would be to get into the details and seek out specific "test cases" where common design and common descent would make different and incompatible predictions. This is the standard way scientists decide between competing explanations. But creationists never do this with the DNA data. Never. The reason why is, ah, "needless to say". But let's look at a test case any way.
One type would be where patterns of common descent do not conform with, but rather depart markedly from, patterns of function or general typology. In such cases do DNA similarities conform to common descent, as evolution requires, or to function and typology, as common design requires?
A good example are reptiles, crocodiles and birds.
It was concluded on anatomical and fossil evidence, many, many decades before biochemical data were even available (comparative protein sequence data only began to accumulate significantly in the 1960's, and DNA sequence data a decade or two later) that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than to other reptiles.
Birds clearly descended, in one way or another (i.e. whether the currently ascendant Dinosaur origin theory, or the competing theocodont origin theory, is correct), from archosaurs, a.k.a. "ruling reptiles". Since crocodiles are the last surviving archosaurs, they MUST share a more recent common ancestor with birds than they share with any lepidosaur ("non-ruling reptiles" like lizards and such).
OTOH, crocodiles are typologically "reptiles," and birds are clearly an entirely different "type" or group from any reptile, or from reptiles generally. At the same time, birds, with their high metabolic rates and their other numerous and marked adaptations to flight, obviously also depart functionally from crocodiles or any other reptile.
So, if common design is true, then crocodile DNA and proteins and such should be more similar to that of other reptiles than to that of birds. Or, at the very least, it should be more or less equally different and equally similar to both.
If common descent is true, then crocodile DNA and proteins and such should be markedly more similar to that of birds than to that of other reptiles.
So which do you think is the case? I know the answer. Which is how I know why creationists never discuss the details of DNA similarities, and instead stick with the arm-waving.