Common Features by Design

When discussing a problem with my mechanic friend, he said that my car needed a certain part replaced. He paused and said, "Unless you don't need a brand new part for your old car", and obtained the necessary part from a similar model that was going to be scrapped. Providentially, this part was just fine. 

Evolutionists use common features and homology to prove evolution. This circular reasoning is foolish and works the opposite way.
Credit: GoodFreePhotos / Huw Williams
Obviously, parts are not always interchangeable, even when manufactured at the same plant. It would be foolish to think that a car made in, say, Romania could have parts easily swapped out with an American-made car. Similarly, people cannot have organ transplants or blood transfusions on the simplistic basis that we're all humans. Tests have to be run and comparisons must made to prevent possibly disastrous results.

Even so, the concept of homology is based on amazingly bad circular reasoning and personal preferences; they are assuming that if certain parts are similar, they must have evolved from the same ancestor. Horse pucky! Also, "it evolved" is a non-explanation, buttercup. These owlhoots also exclude the more rational explanation that commonality indicates a common designer. If you study on it, why would the Master Engineer essentially reinvent the wheel for every living thing?
An evolutionist friend and I recently chatted about animals. He said it’s amazing how many different animals’ skeletons look so similar. Just stretch, shrink, and shape the bones of one creature to transform them into the skeletal arrangement of another. I recognized this as his way of expressing the keystone argument for evolution called homology. The conversation reminded me of two major flaws with this idea.
To read the rest, click on "Homology: Descent or Design?" You may also like to see a similar article starting at "Homology and Design Features".