That’s the sticking point for them, or should be if they even cared about being intellectually consistent. Any reasonably inclusive definition of “kind” would group humans with at least some other primates. But if they make the term restrictive enough to include only humans, Noah would have had to cram his Ark with so many millions of “kinds” it would strain even a YECs credulity.
That sounds a lot like cladistics. You might want to read up on synapomorphies and apomorphies.
As others have mentioned, humans share traits with other mammals which are unique to mammals, such as teats and fur.
I would phrase it so that ALL species with those features are in the same group. Otherwise, you are arbitrarily picking which species to include.
Two species of mammals are still mammals. Two species of tetrapods are still tetrapods. Two species of vertebrates are still vertebrates.
I would also suspect that the genetic distance between species within many of these design perspective based groups will be higher than the genetic distance between humans and chimps. If evolution and common ancestry can produce more genetic divergence within kinds than between humans and chimps, then they would have to accept the evolutionary mechanisms as being adequate for producing that divergence.
So that hypothesis predicts that we will not find non-motor ancestors, nor any non-motor relatives, of motors, correct?
Good grief. You certainly extracted that question out of context and without comprehension! There is no scientific hypothesis involved, and I even said as much explicitly twice within that short paragraph, and actually gave an example saying exactly the opposite. What does the word exaptation mean, that you will not find non-motor ancestors and relatives?! And were “…as a scientific model, no” and “…as a scientific model, untenable” invisible to you?
Sure there is. You saying so doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
I saw them. Does their being visible mean that I must agree?
So no means yes. Okay.
Please show me the hypothesis that I made that I implied was scientific and was testable.
@DaleCutler I’m with you on this one.
You joined the ID movement when we weren’t looking?!
with human design, we see increasing functionality, efficiency and complexity over time, eventually branching off into new designs. That’s because we start from ignorance and learn as we go.
An omnipotent designer who creates everything ex nihilo would have no need to follow this pattern.
OK, that’s a prediction! But why is this a prediction about design? Could change over millions of years also be designed??
Others have already commented on your odd claim about evolution, so I’ll let that pass.
Yes bacteria still exist. Just because something new evolves from bacteria doesn’t mean bacteria cease to exist. Your statement is very similar to, “If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”. Substitute bacteria for monkeys.
The rest of what you wrote is good too, but this nails what I was after.
Which is the sort of alternative argument I anticipated. @DaleCutler has another one:
And Design advocates will occasionally claim the Designer doesn’t need to be avoid those inefficiencies. But then there is no criteria for Design at all. They seem to want it both ways.
9 posts were split to a new topic: Why are there still monkeys?
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Why are there still monkeys?