Similarities in DNA and anatomy are due to common design (Talk.Origins)

Claim CI141:


 * Similarities in anatomy and DNA sequences simply reflect the fact that the organisms had the same designer.

Source: Sarfati, Jonathan, 2002. Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books, chap. 6.

CreationWiki response:

No one is claiming similar forms to be exclusively evidence of a common designer, this is simply a response to the Evolutionary claim that it is evidence of common decent.

This is another example of "your theory doesn't work under my theory", though in a slightly different way. Talk.Origins is wanting us to give a deterministic list of rules for creation. However, the very notion of agency and creativity implies that such things cannot be determined by exact rules. You cannot say "creativity does not exist because you haven't found the rules!" because finding exact rules would undermine the concept of creativity itself!

However, what we do know about designers is that designers usually design in patterns. While you can usually organize work into hierarchical patterns, they are usually not composed of strictly hierarchical patterns. That is precisely what is seen in the design.

"Convergent evolution" is just a term which indicates a pattern that doesn't follow the strict hierarchy. In the design context, in very different populations, "convergent evolution" would mean that the designer is simply applying design patterns in a way that isn't strictly hierarchical.

Actually, what Evolution theory predicts is that similar forms are found in organisms of common ancestry, but since they use similar forms to determine common ancestry, it is Circular reasoning to argue that this prediction fits observation.

Furthermore, Evolution theory says that similar forms come from common ancestry, and so it predicts that similar forms are produced by the same genes. This prediction is contrary to what is observed since often similar forms come from different genes.
 * Sarfati, J. & Matthews, M., 2002. Common Design Points to Common Ancestry. In: Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books, chap. 6.

Actually this can be rationally attributed to design, when one understands how viruses fit in to the design scheme. If viruses were designed as a DNA transfer system intended to aid adaptability, then this is to be expected. Such a virus would not insert themselves totally randomly, but in a location dictated by the existing genetic code. The result is that even unrelated organisms with similar DNA would tend to get such viruses  in the same location. Furthermore deterioration caused by mutations would make it likely that insertion would be come more random over time.
 * Ashcraft, C. W., 2004. Genetic Variability by Design. CEN TJ 18(2): 98-104.
 * Ashcraft C. W., Gene Hijacking: The Role of Interspecies Gene Transfer.
 * Bergman, J., 1999. God Make Pathogenic Viruses? CEN TJ 13(1): 115–125.

This interpretation is supported by studies showing that at least some E RVs are specific in their genome integration into the genome.

There is also evidence based on their functions that at least ERVs could have been created in the genome.
 * Liu, Y., 2006 (Dec. 20). Were Retroviruses Created Good? AiG.

This is a ridiculous statement, the form of a designed object is often dictated by its function. Other considerations may influence form as well but function is a critical issue, since form needs to be compatible with function.