Usually, they'll claim that "similar designs mean a common designer, like different makes or model of a car." This falls flat for a number of reasons, such as the fact that cars don't reproduce.
(Pic related: one of the slides used at the Nye/Ham debate)
Also, here's a video by Dr. Todd Wood, one of only a few qualified creationists.
youtube.com
Cars do reproduce if you take into account production factory and assembly line. It's like saying an individual ant does not reproduce but the colony does. Cars evolve too. It's inherent. People think that cars are built by designers that come in fully understand what to build but that's not true at all in engineering. The process is actually quite similar to evolution in a way. A designer comes in and fuck around with a prototype trying random things and testing it out. Something works and gets mass produce. People then take the new iteration and randomly fuck with it until it improves.
I was meaning more along the lines of physically giving birth than people building new models.
>one cannot become the other because it is much better as itself
So a single celled organism is better than a multicellular organism?
>if it tried to be something it wasn't, it was surely perish.
It didn't try to be anything. It was selected for by the environment BECAUSE it survived more in the environment. So you have not presented a genetic barrier, you just said that natural selection didn't happen without providing a reason why it couldn't happen. Why would nature care about "kinds" as opposed to the best changes?
There's quite a variety of ways that reproduction occurs, so you have to be a bit technical and more inclusive. For example people don't reproduce on their own either, a male and female is needed.
Anyways, "kind" comes down to sorting and is relative. If you have a 100 different objects you'll naturally organize them into different sets based on their similarities in features relative to each other. A rabbit and elephant is more similar to each other than a fish or starfish. With DNA we sort by similarities in genes.
By that logic, all cars "evolved" from the first car, therefore the analogy fails in this context.
Anyway, all it's doing is switching genes and natural selection for memes and artificial selection. It's just assuming what you're trying to argue. The fact that things "evolved" does not imply design, as there are non-design processes that lead to evolution.
What a massive confirmation biased idiot. i can see how you call him one of the smartest, because that means literally jackshit when looking at creationists.
If he did the same thing with fish, he would have had to put actual fish and whales and dolphins as closely related, because they do sorta look alike. Only in biology there isnt only phenotypes. Differences and similarities are much more complex than what he suggests.
Doesn't explain common organelles lmao