How creationism explains babies with tails

There are marsupial mice and moles etc. They look like their placental namesakes. A marsupial mole is genetically closer to a kangaroo than it is to its placental version. A placental mouse is genetically closer to an elephant than it is to it's marsupial counterpart.So your assertion that there is bound to be similar genetic makeup when creatures 'look similar' is falsified by this evidence.Further - we can test genes that have no effect on the way an organism looks such as cytochrome c and the pattern holds as if they were evolved. Yes, the designer could have done it ANY WAY. Evolution can only have done it in conformity with one pattern. Remember that wise man that once said:

quote:

---

There would be those who would find patterns to support their position no matter what this world looked like.

---

That's design for you: if it looks evolved it could have been designed that way. If it doesn't look evolved: it was designed that way. Whatever we find, whatever we could find, all supports design equally and therefore whatever we find doesn't actually increase our confidence in design. You can take genes from one species and plonk them into a completely different species to create interesting new designs. Often called genetic modification, this is evidence of intervening design and it is exactly the thing we don't see unless a human has been involved. God can do that if humans can, but God (or whatever designer) didn't. Again - it could have looked designed with GM going on here and there - but it didn't.

A full discussion on the issues you raise would probably take us way off topic. I'm glad to see you have agreed to concede the assertion 'With creatures that look similar, there's bound to be similar genetic makeup.' is untrue. I presume you are happy to drop the 'the designer could have designed that way' argument as being as empty is as I argued it was.