Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds

quote:

---

A baby lobster and a scorpion look pretty similar, CS. Don't be fooled...

---

First someone compared a human to a chimpanzee. Yet they are related.Then someone compares Lobsters and Scorpions, but they are related too! They are both Arthropods.
Arthropod - Wikipedia

Sorry I probably should have included more info in my post.
I did read what you wrote and I think you make a very good point. I think that we shouldn't base any conclusion on mere physiological similarities. I think it is a good starting point to look for more evidence and then continue to research. Conclusions should only be made when sufficient evidence is collected to support your hypothesis (or beliefs).Before I go any further, you are arguing for Creation right?

quote:

---

You ask what else is needed. For similarities to be conclusive proof of common descent, you need to be able to prove that all other options aren't possible.

---

I think one of the faults with creationism is that it's mainly based on the arguments attempting to disprove rather than prove. That if you can disprove evolution than you prove creationism right. Evolution is the opposite and only attempts to prove what it can support not what it can disprove. Thus the objective here isn't to disprove everything except common descent but attempt to prove it with the evidence that we have.

quote:

---

One of those options is convergent evolution.

---

This sounds more like another one of those "What if" scenarios I keep hearing about. What if humans evolved at the same time as chimpanzees and evolved with the exact same features?

quote:

---

You need to find a physical criteria that can be observed that show convergent evolution took place and not common descent.

---

Didn't you mean this sentence to have common descent and convergent evolution to be switched? Also do you have any way to explain how convergent evolution applies to human and chimp evolution?

quote:

---

Dr. Adequate said earlier that convergent evolution causes only superficial resemblance but no in depth similarities. I have a hard time accepting this idea as valid, so maybe if it could be explained in detail and how a criteria for convergent evolution can be clearly stated out of this.

---

Look at bird wings and look at bat wings. Both are wings and when viewed from afar they appear to be the same. Yet when examined closely the difference is obvious. Bird wings have feathers, bat wings do not. The bone structure of bat wings is different from bird wings. Therefore the similarities are only superficial.