Darwin's Macro-Evolution: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)

DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor .
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal?

3. When people in the scientific community speak about "new species," are they referring to one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal? Or are they referring to variation within the exact same type of animal?[/font]

[Shermana]

Okay, so do you know of any limitations on life that will prevent one form from continuing to evolve until it becomes a different class of life?

As of this time right now, there is still research being done on the limits. But we've yet to see anything make a radical difference as of yet, so there are observable limits within each generation.

http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n7 ... 0-565.html

The likelihood of epigenetic inheritance that is independent of DNA sequence and/or the instructive signal is a divisive issue6. Future research will test the durability and temporal limits of epigenetic inheritance. The mere possibility of some sort of soft rather than hard DNA sequence–based inheritance revives Lamarckism (the idea that an organism can pass on to its offspring characteristics acquired during its lifetime) and the possibility of nurture-induced, life-long and potentially heritable phenotypes7.

Do you know of a better and more elegant explanation for our fossil record, which shows life on earth evolving from least complex to more complex over time?

It does not necessarily show life on earth evolving over time in stages whatsoever. It's pure speculation. There's the issue of Geological strata but that's for another day.

Do you know of a better explanation for our genetic record which shows common genetic ancestry AND lines up with the ancestry trees we derived from our fossil records?

Simple, all DNA basically has some kind of source code which all living beings share, and that's the way we Creationists believe life was created, from these building blocks to make different forms. Even if we are 96% or 92% whatever related to chimps, we're also 90% related to dogs. As for the "ancestry trees", you'll see that many of the "hopefuls" like Australopithecus have been debunked and there remains nothing but missing links, at best they have GUESSES based on what they now perceive as "branches", but there is nothing recoverable, even Homo Erectus that can be conclusively traced. It's ALL speculation. Even Gould lamented how there's not really much if any direct evidence for transition as of yet. You're welcome to believe in total speculation without much actual evidence if you want though.

[Artie]

Simple, all DNA basically has some kind of source code which all living beings share, and that's the way we Creationists believe life was created, from these building blocks to make different forms.

There seems to be different kinds of Creationism such as Young Earth creationism, Modern geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis, Creation science, Old Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Day-Age creationism, Progressive creationism, Neo-Creationism, Intelligent design and Theistic evolution and those are only the ones I'm aware of... can you specify which particular Creationism you believe in?

[Autodidact]

Why do the goalposts of new species matter to you so much?

\

Because like I earlier said, people try to say that Macro-evolution has already been observed, when it clearly hasn't, and it seems that there is in fact wordplay going on to try to act as if Macro-evolution is happening when it is in fact MICRO-evolution being portrayed as Macro.

Macro-evolution, by its nature, cannot be observed, it can only be inferred from the evidence, which is overwhelming.

There is an observed phenomenon where life evolves from one form into another.

And there you go, a perfect example of my point. What's been observed is only Micro, not Macro. Therefore, there is nothing proving the Darwinistic model. To say otherwise would be a false assertion. And that's the issue of what the "goalposts" of speciation are.

That's right. But when you add micro + mocro + micro, you must get macro, by definition. So what specific barrier can you point to that prevents micro from accumulating into macro?

[Bust Nak]

What you're hitting upon may be an example of Epigenetics. Once again for the record, I completely believe in Neo-Lamarckianism and Epigenetics.

I don't know what you mean by Neo-Lamarckianism but Epigenetics is part of evolution.

That said, the idea that the horse and donkey came from a common ancestor is not necessarily out of my range. HOWEVER

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 41,00.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1289946/

There is not a 0% fertility rate nonetheless. There are some cases of fertile mules. Thus, with even a few minor cases, they are not technically evidence of completely different "species".

Well there are prenty more examples of animal considered to of the same "kind" or "type" by creationists that don't interbreed at all, like fish "kind" for example. Take pike and salmon, definitely different species by all account, readily accepted as variation within its own kind when it suits creationist. Yet rejected as an example of macro-evolution when it clearly fits the "changes at or above the species level" definition.

In Neo-Lamarckianism (Lamarck seemed to be a Creationist btw) and Epigenetics, there exists the possibility of new forms of the same original form. The problem however, is getting a fish to eventually become a monkey, rather than new kinds of the same fish.

Lets make it clear that technically no fish ever became a monkey according to evolution. Fish and monkey shared a common ancestor that had features shared by both fish and monkey, (although this ancestor would look much more like a modern fish than a monkey, and could rightly be called a prehistoric fish.) Careless use of words is what lead to common misconceptions about evolution like crocoduck.

Expanding on the above, according to evolution, organism evolved into more specialised verson of themselves. Monkey and fish are specialised form of the proto-fish-monkey. A monkey is a modern verson of that ancestor, in the same way a fish too is a modern verson of that ancestor. There had never been a time when an organism stopped being a variation of the original "kind." To reiterate - evolution does not say an organism changes into something radically different, rather, it is as you put it, new kinds of the same organism is all that is needed to get from the first life to fishes and monkeys.

And there lies the problem when a Macro-evolutionist attempts to state that Macro-evolution has occured, when it hasn't.

Well it has, for certain definitions of species. Would you like change your stance to accept macro-evolution (as defined above) but don't accept universal common ancestor?

Still nonetheless, we have yet to see evidence that a species can become something radically different, like developing bipedalism, it's ALL speculation, and there's no evidence to say that it's even possible. There IS evidence that there may be limits to what can "evolve" within the initial structure.

Well, what is so radically different between walking on two legs and knuckle dragging? What is so radically different between knuckle dragging and walking on all four? What is so radically different between walking on all four and dragging your body along on all four?

I was looking more into this, there may be a basic problem they may not even be the same type of Mosquitoes to begin with. I have yet to find anything that these didn't exist 170 years ago rather than being DISCOVERED. Where is the proof that they are new? From what I'm reading it says they are not new at all.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _70770157/

If that's the case, the whole experiment is off. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems they are different kinds to begin with. I will continue to research more about this.

I am reading some more things about it, can you prove that it's an entirely new breed of Mosquito as opposed to a RECENTLY DISCOVERED one?

Is that fact their habitat only came into existence around 150 years ago good enough evidence for you?

[otseng]

I can't help you if you insist on becoming a disciple of the idiot Carl Linnaeus.

Moderator Comment

Do not all anyone (deceased or living) an idiot, despite what you might think of that person.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[scourge99]

Do you know of a better explanation for our genetic record which shows common genetic ancestry AND lines up with the ancestry trees we derived from our fossil records?

Simple, all DNA basically has some kind of source code which all living beings share,

"To put is very simply, DNA is a molecule with certain chemical properties that causes it to build proteins. It is no more special or magical than any other molecule." If DNAs chemical reactions is the result of "source code" then every chemical reaction must be the result of some "code". Gunpowder has a code for how it burns. Every star contains source code for how big and bright it is. Metal has a code for how it rusts.

Even if we are 96% or 92% whatever related to chimps, we're also 90% related to dogs.

Please cite your source or retract these assertions.

According to the smithsonian's human origin initiative (humanorigins.si.edu) , Dna differences in humans is about 0.1%. 1.2% between humans, chimpanzees and bonobos. 1.6% between us and gorillas.

Mitochondrial differences show that we are more closely related to neanderthales than chimps and bonobos.

Another source puts cats at 90%. (genome.cshlp.org: initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome)

Cows at 80% (sciencemag.org: genome sequence of taurine cattle)

Chicken at 60% (sciencedaily. Com: researchers compare chicken and human genomes)

The conclusion of common descent is overwhelming. Even more so when independent analysis is done for morphology and dating. Multiple lines of independent evidence converge.

As for the "ancestry trees", you'll see that many of the "hopefuls" like Australopithecus have been debunked

Please cite your source and elaborate on what you think has been debunked.

and there remains nothing but missing links

At what point will there be no "missing links"? When we have every fossil of every humanoid that has ever lived?

at best they have GUESSES based on what they now perceive as "branches", but there is nothing recoverable, even Homo Erectus that can be conclusively traced. It's ALL speculation.

One unsourced and highly questionable claim after another. The pattern is clear.

Even Gould lamented how there's not really much if any direct evidence for transition as of yet.

Please cite this quote. Or are you quote mining like Alter2Ego?

[Shermana]

"To put is very simply, DNA is a molecule with certain chemical properties that causes it to build proteins. It is no more special or magical than any other molecule." If DNAs chemical reactions is the result of "source code" then every chemical reaction must be the result of some "code". Gunpowder has a code for how it burns. Every star contains source code for how big and bright it is. Metal has a code for how it rusts.

Basically not too far from the concept. The point being, there's a reason humans share 90% DNA with cats (got em mixed up with dogs), because the structure itself is so similar, along with 69% in rats.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread ... nd-animals

(Sources on post).

Please cite your source or retract these assertions.

I did in fact mix up cats with dogs, dogs only share 82% DNA with humans. Mice share 67%, and chimps range from 96-98% from that source now that I've fact checked. Regardless though, if cats share 90%, I don't see why 96-98% with Chimps implies common descent. And my source below says 96%. Which is 6% more than the cat.

According to the smithsonian's human origin initiative (humanorigins.si.edu) , Dna differences in humans is about 0.1%. 1.2% between humans, chimpanzees and bonobos. 1.6% between us and gorillas.

The number with chimps seems to vary with various sources.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread ... nd-animals

Says 96% here. So whose source is right?

Mitochondrial differences show that we are more closely related to neanderthales than chimps and bonobos.

I have no problem with the idea of so-called Neanderthals, especially since many sources believe they mated successfully with "humans". In fact, many seem to think Neanderthals were not anything other than a different "breed" of humans. Is there any actual reason to characterize them as that different? Some say they were even smarter than "humans". By the same logic we categorize these smart, religious Neanderthals as different species, why not characterize native Islanders or American Indians as different species? Where would be the difference in such criteria compared to these intelligent, possibly even superior-brained "Neanderthals?" Is this .5% difference much different than the accepted number of difference between humans?

http://www.livescience.com/1122-neander ... human.html

Another source puts cats at 90%. (genome.cshlp.org: initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome)

Cows at 80% (sciencemag.org: genome sequence of taurine cattle)

Chicken at 60% (sciencedaily. Com: researchers compare chicken and human genomes)

The conclusion of common descent is overwhelming.

If you wish to think so, I'd say the evidence against it is overwhelming.

Even more so when independent analysis is done for morphology and dating. Multiple lines of independent evidence converge.

What kinds of "independent evidence coverage" of "analysis" of Morphology exactly? As for "dating", that's all speculative too. You can't even find raw data publicly available for much dating on anything, so it's speculative and appeal to authority unless the actual data is there for observation.

Please cite your source and elaborate on what you think has been debunked.

Science et Vie, May 1999:

A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.188

At what point will there be no "missing links"? When we have every fossil of every humanoid that has ever lived?

Let me know when they find even one that's on the chain.

I am having difficulty finding anything that outright says that Erectus was an ancestor. The talkorigins article is elusive on it. Searching...

This says that recent findings suggest that findings called "Erectus" may not be what they're saying it is. I will find more. (Writer for Reuters).

http://www.sharonlbegley.com/a-new-disc ... -evolution

"What they're calling erectus might be a new, as-yet-unnamed species."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

his mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

Sahalenthropus Tschadensis they can't even tell if it was bipedal. And it was "close" but not directly on the chain.

And the often cited Habiils is by no means commonly accepted and may even be the result of straight up fraud (acccording to some).

Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.

Let me add, there is in fact debate as to whether Habilis is considered an ancestor among Evolutionary scientists.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8910965.htm

The Science Magazine EurekaMag.com covers a wide range of topics including biology, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, geography, environment and health. Drawing from this pool of scientific disciplines, it publishes reviews on topics which have recently become popular in the public as indicated by popular search terms on web search engines including Google.

The review on the "handy man" Homo habilis covers the debate on whether Homo habilis who lived from approximately 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago is a direct human ancestor. There are at least four hypotheses: (1) all early Homo specimens belong to the same Homo habilis species, (2) all early Homo specimens belong to the early Homo hypodigm, (3) two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis do not belong to the genus Homo but to the genus Australopithecus, and (4) Homo rudolfensis belong to the genus Kenyanthropus. The review covers one attempt to distinguish two human groups. The first group includes Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and Neanderthal and the second group includes only modern human. There is also debate whether Homo habilis is composed of two species: Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis.

One unsourced and highly questionable claim after another. The pattern is clear.

Consider it now sourced.

Please cite this quote.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p.

1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

The defenses against the "quote mining" are rather desparate, at least I think. Feel free to quote from that article anything that actually disproves the basic idea as opposed to what they are against the Creationists saying. The point being, whether Talkorigins is claiming quote mining or not, they are simply justifying the "grand scheme of things". They say Gould points to the chain of human ancestors...like which ones? Ones that are no longer considered legitimate ancestors like Australopithetcus?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- MCCULLOCH:
Telling me that I can't call a spade a spade will not work. You conveniently ignored the fact that JANX baited me--while putting on a front of being "civil"--by ending each of his/her idiotic posts to me with the word "Cheers". Below are three examples of JANX baiting me within this thread.


EXAMPLE #1 OF BAITING BY JANX:

Excellent, so you believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form and you probably know that these changes are coded in genes which can be passed on to offspring.

So what's stopping you from believing that after several such adaptations a lifeform becomes different enough from it's original form to qualify as different species? What do you believe happens to life when it comes to to that precipice of becoming a new species? Does it just stop and turn off it's adaptation mechanism?

EXAMPLE #2 OF BAITING BY JANX:

If you believe that life adapts; that life changes form, appearance, and behavior to adapt to environmental changes why do you believe these changes stop before they alter a living thing into another species?

Further, what do you make of the fossil records of apes, cetacea, and birds? Why do animal species keep dying out and being replaced with species of slight variation that gradually progress into forms we see at present day?

EXAMPLE #3 OF BAITING BY JANX:

Well we are getting somewhere Alter2Ego,

This would indicate you believe that Chimp and Human are the same species. They are after all just variations of the same animal.

If not please provide me with a definition that allows for distinction between the two.

Each and every time JANX made the above statements, I informed him/her that I said nothing of the kind. Yet he/she kept coming back with the same baiting language, which amounts to insulting me but doing it in a manner that would not alert the moderators that JANX was not being "civil". What JANX did in baiting me is a violation of Forum Rule #7 which says:

"7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages."


It was after the third example of baiting, quoted above, that I responded by telling JANX that he/she was either having reading and comprehension problems or else he/she was a mind reader.

My conclusion: that JANX's reading and comprehension skills are slow on the uptake, is a conclusion that anybody with common sense would draw--considering that I clearly indicated in my opening post and in other responses to various ones within this thread that I reject all forms of evolution. Anybody, after reading what I've said in my posts and then seeing JANX repeatedly asking me if I believed this or that animal evolved, would draw the same conclusion as I have—that JANX IS DENSE. [/font]

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]OTSENG

I can't help you if you insist on becoming a disciple of the idiot Carl Linnaeus.

Moderator Comment

Do not all anyone (deceased or living) an idiot, despite what you might think of that person.

Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

Keep in mind that the so-call scholars who come up with these ideas don't have any proof that this is what actually happened. This is just something their rotten minds came up with.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid using derogatory language to describe others. Just relate the facts without attacking others.

Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

ALTER2EGO -to-OTSENG:
Telling me or anybody else on this forum that we can't make negative comments about people that aren't even part of this community—including people that have been dead for centuries—is not only ridiculous, it's restriction of free speech to the extreme. It borders on paranoia. If this is you all's idea of being "civil," which amounts to telling members of this forum they must walk on egg shells, you can have your website to yourselves.

I want no part of this insanity that you moderators are imposing here. I can see now why your membership is so low. Nobody in his or her right mind will put up with this nonsense in which you moderators--in your arrogance and vanity--are attempting to completely control how adults interact. You moderators are a joke! Your imagined power on this forum has gone to your heads.


MCCULLOCH

Since when did an ape, a chimpanzee, or any of those types of animals become HUMAN?

He [Carl Linnaeus] decided--based upon his personal opinions--that humans and apes are related.

It was not personal opinion but biological similarity. Humans are animals. We are alive and we are certainly not plants. Humans are vertebrates, we are animals which have a backbone. Humans are mammals; we have hair, warm blood and nurse our young. Humans are one of the Great Apes along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Orangutangs. We are primates with large brains (relative to the other primates) and little or no tail.

ALTER2EGO -to- MCCULLOCH:
According to you, it was not personal opinion on Linneaus' part that humans are animal. What else would I expect you to say? After all, you happen to agree with his opinion.

Looking at biological "similarities" and then using that to say humans are animals is an opinion. By restricting the division of life forms to plants and animals, you—like Carl Linneaus—have taken it upon yourself to opine that humans are animals. The classification of life forms is not just plants and animals, it includes a third classification called HUMAN.

In any event, I could care less if you agree with Carl Linneaus. That's not going to change the fact that Carl Linneaus was a fool for erroneously concluding--based upon his flawed opinion--that humans are animals, related to apes.


As for yours and OTSENG's extreme censuring in telling me that I can't refer to Linneaus as a fool--a man who's been dead more than 200 years and is not even a member of this debate community--you and OTSENG have proven how ridiculous people can get when they are vain enough to think they can establish what's considered "civil" conversation.

Nobody in the real world disagrees with other people without saying something negative about the authors of a reference source or about an opponent. So long as the negative comments are not foul and contain expletives, I see nothing wrong with making negative comments about an opponent who displays the qualities that I describe when I make the negative comment.


The people who own this website are completely unrealistic in expecting opponents to NOT express negative opinions about opponents and the reference sources of opponents. What you people are doing here is known as micro-controlling--which is as harmful as allowing the opposite extreme of no control at all. I've been to the debate forums on other websites and have never before come across one like this where blatant violation of free speech by moderators is the rule.


BTW: I notice that none of you moderators complain when the atheists on this forum attack the Bible writers and accuse them of inventing prophesies, meaning the Bible writers are liars—which amounts to "negative" comments about persons living or dead.

You established a double-standard for Carl Linneaus by restricting me from RIGHTFULLY referring to him as the COMPLETE FOOL that he was. Meanwhile, you placed no restrictions on the atheists who accuse Bible writers of dishonesty. So that's where you draw the line. The Bible writers can have their credibility attacked.


I made the mistake of inviting six people that I met at other forums to come here. I will be certain to warn them not to waste their time and join after all. This website is run like a police state.


DO ME THE FAVOR OF CANCELING MY ACCOUNT WITH ALL POSSIBLE DISPATCH. [/font]

[Janx]

Okay, so do you know of any limitations on life that will prevent one form from continuing to evolve until it becomes a different class of life?

As of this time right now, there is still research being done on the limits. But we've yet to see anything make a radical difference as of yet, so there are observable limits within each generation.

http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n7 ... 0-565.html

The likelihood of epigenetic inheritance that is independent of DNA sequence and/or the instructive signal is a divisive issue. Future research will test the durability and temporal limits of epigenetic inheritance. The mere possibility of some sort of soft rather than hard DNA sequence–based inheritance revives Lamarckism (the idea that an organism can pass on to its offspring characteristics acquired during its lifetime) and the possibility of nurture-induced, life-long and potentially heritable phenotypes.

How does this contradict evolution within populations? If anything epigenetics makes change even more likely with life.

Do you know of a better and more elegant explanation for our fossil record, which shows life on earth evolving from least complex to more complex over time?

It does not necessarily show life on earth evolving over time in stages whatsoever. It's pure speculation. There's the issue of Geological strata but that's for another day.

In other words you are relying on the skepticism of paleontology to back up your skepticism of biology. Which means you also have skepticism of geology and most likely cosmology. This is quite the conspiracy theory here.

Do you know of a better explanation for our genetic record which shows common genetic ancestry AND lines up with the ancestry trees we derived from our fossil records?

Simple, all DNA basically has some kind of source code which all living beings share, and that's the way we Creationists believe life was created, from these building blocks to make different forms.

Saying "that's just the way we are designed" is not an explanation. For example some questions you'll need to answer are: why did God make us the way He did? Why did He destroy so many previous species of life that appear to be prototypes for modern life?

Further, even if you do not believe in past evolution, evidence points to the fact that future evolution of life will happen and is happening as we speak - over time this will lead to macro-evolution.