> With TVs, we see how the outward form stays the same over a long period of time (rectangle, with varying depth), but the inner mechanism is completely differe

> With TVs, we see how the outward form stays the same over a long period of time (rectangle, with varying depth), but the inner mechanism is completely different (vacuum tubes, plasma, LEDs, etc.) This is a very good point. I have to admit I haven't thought about it this way. I'm trying to understand the distinction you make between transformations of living organisms and man-made objects. So you are highlighting the observation that mammals have similar skeletons and muscle structures, similar digestive systems etc. What does this observation mean? Example: Wa see a remarkable similarity between human and bird skeletons. The difference is topological because differences are in form only. In topology a doughnut and a teacup are the same object. They may look different but they can be transformed into eech other. Another example: A cat has a tail. Human skeleton does not have a fully developed tail, but the spinal column ends with a tailbone. This is usually interpreted as a "vestigal" tail; meaning that human skeleton once had a tail but humans lost the tail by way of "evolution". For me this reasoning is not justified. To me it is more plausible that the creator(s) or designer(s) of mammals figured how to design different forms from the same formula. So they knew topology. And by tweaking certain terms in their formula (or genes) they could get a cat, a dog or a human. A dog embrio cannot be distinguished from human embrio in early stages. We can even observe this topological design in the two human species. The reproductive organs of man and woman are exactly the same; they differ only as the way a doughnut differs from a teacup. The fact that both sexes have the same reproductive organs, but organized in a topologically different form, does not imply that man evolved into woman. Or woman evolved into man. On the contrary, they must have been created separately with each other in mind. So if different species have similar organs varying only topologically, this does not imply that one "evolved" from the other. Or that they evolved from the same common ancestor. This only implies that the same formula created both of them. > (mouse, elephant, dolphin)... Regarding the topic of the creation of new species by evolution, I belong in Lynn Margulis' school of thought. According to Margulis, new species are created by symbiosis and not by speciation by evolution. I'm against arguing by using the word "evolution" as a cause because this word has so many meanings that it can mean anything and everything.