Mikie

Of course cars can't reproduce. The ananlogy was given to show that similarity can be attributed to other things besides decent. Sorry if that got by you.

You got it - design. They would be able to see that a design can "come from" another design. In the case of the cars, certain elements of design are seen to work well, and are used again. For instance, there is no reason to change to square tires, since round tires seem to work best. Therefore, different designers use "economy of design" and create completely different machines, in different factories, using different materials, at different times in history, but their automobiles have nothing else in common.

My point being that it is perfectly plausible that a designer/creator created all living things, using certain design elements that many living things have in common. This might be why we see commonality and similarity - not because these creatures are necessarily realated by way of evolution. They don't necessarily have to be "related" by descent, and apparent similarity means nothing unless it can be showed that there is a direct link between the two creatures. They can share certain common properties by way of design, by a designer that employed elements that worked well.

Kingreaper

so we don't have all the charecteristics used to define an ape?
oh we do, so is it the evolved bit you're complaining about (but would you accept descended from), well, in the judeo-christian creationism, the human race has changed considerably since Noah. gaining new races etc. this counts as evolution (black people are adapted to africa and other hot countries, paler skin to colder countries) and so unless you contend God forgot to mention other creation events, we have evolved, and from apes

Mikie

That is influenced by your desire to comply with evolutionary theory. If you insist on believing that chimps and humans have a common ancestor, then it doesn't take much to make the leap of bringing them into the hominid family, now does it?

It is interesting that the assumption is that we are the advanced "species". Why not make us part of the primate family? That's what they've tried to do for years, why the change?

Just don't turn your car keys over to your pet monkey. Except in California where I believe he might be able to get a license.

Kingreaper

The "designer that employs elements that work well" Hypothesis, has been falsified by this http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#retina a design that works well exists and is used but isn't used uniformly, and useless bodyparts are also used as you'll see by scrolling up on that link

RufusAtticus

Tree of Life: Hominidae

Animal Diversity Web: Hominidae

Care to demonstrate how none of these characteristics apply to humans?

breathilizer

We are primates

nogods4me

OK, somone please show Mikie the chomosome challenge posted by Scigirl.
And dude we are primates. Take a look HERE! for some of our "cousins".

RufusAtticus

Except in nature we do find square tires, to continue the analogy.

Please explain the "economy of design" that lead to humans, chimps, gorillias, and orangutans all lacking a functioning copy of GLUO (a gene involved in viatamin C synthesis) but carrying a non-functioning copy.

So do you think that paternity tests are invalid? It's just similiary with no direct link between the adult and the child.

chapka

One more manderguy didn't mention. Evolution predicts the kind of changes we see over time. For example, a light-sensitive patch is useful enough that it eventually can develop into an eye. Rudimentary organs of other sorts aren't useful, and so won't develop. This is why no large animals have wheels with axles, for instance.

Albion

Read "Time Frames" by Niles Eldredge, where he describes one of his earliest experiments to support punctuated equilibrium. He saw two species of trilobite without an obvious transitional, figured out on the basis of PE where the transitional would be, went to that part of the country, started digging, and found it. Classic example of testing a theory.