I think the explanation is fairly straightforward: “Ah ain’t kin to no monkey!” If you object that that’s not, properly speaking, an explanation, the rebuttal is “but ah STILL ain’t kin to no monkey!”
6 Likes
She’d probably understand it as well as the ID sympathizers who participated in that discussion did.
From the article in the OP:
As others have mentioned, the conflation of genetic similarities and a nested hierarchy is a massive problem in the article. Either Reeves knows that those are not the same thing and is purposefully deceiving her audience, or Reeves doesn’t know that there is a difference which disqualifies her as an expert on the subject.
But it is interesting that Reeves mentions recombinant DNA. This is a prime example of how design does not produce a nested hierarchy. If life were designed in a similar manner to how recombinant DNA technologies are used in the modern lab, then we see this design as massive departures from a nested hierarchy. It would stick out like a sore thumb, but we don’t see it.
4 Likes
@GutsickGibbon responds here: Responding to Emily Reeves