How? It’s also worth pointing out compatible with != not evidence against. Common descent predicts such data. Nothing about design predicts a common design blueprint. So design may be able to explain it but it’s more probable on common ancestry.
How does Common Descent predict such data? You don’t even have a mechanism and without that you have no idea what pattern to expect.
Common Design expects similarities- we see that with buildings and houses build to the same code; PCs having the same hardware architecture; automobiles have many similarities within the brand and across the board.
An Intelligent Designer would not re-invent genes that code for proteins that are used throughout life.
Linnaean Classification- the nested hierarchy when it comes to biology- is based on a Common Design. Darwinists took it, replaced “archetype” with “common ancestor” just to show that they had an explanation for the pattern. Not that it- Common Descent- predicted it.
We are talking common ancestry here. Not mechanism. Common ancestry can still be true (some ID proponents hold to it.) without a possible natural mechanism. The evidence for common ancestry is independent of mechanism. So your point there is irrelevant.
1 Like
And you know this designer has the same psychology and design tendencies as us how? How can you possibly know what a designer would and would not do? That is a huge assumption I will not grant.
1 Like
I use my knowledge of design and make the inferences accordingly. As I said we have plenty of examples to draw from.
You’re missing the point. You have plenty of examples from Humans. But you have no reason at all to think that this designing intelligience has the same Pyschology as us and would do things the way we do.
1 Like
I read the link. There isn’t anything that demonstrates a mechanism capable of producing the anatomical and physiological changes required.
You need something more than survival of the fittest. The fittest prokaryotes are still prokaryotes. The fittest chimps are still chimps. The fittest grey squirrels are still grey squirrels.
We use the knowledge that we have. We base our inferences on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Then we apply that knowledge where we are trying to figure out how X (whatever is being investigated) came to be the way it is.
And in this case our knowledge is totally insufficient to make these types of inferences.
You need a mechanism before you know what the pattern is. You need a mechanism capable of producing the changes required or your reading of the pattern is unfounded.
In what case?
We have sequenced both the chimp and human genomes. No one has been able to link the genetic differences to the anatomical and physiological differences.
And if the genetic difference is really less than 2% then either something is wrong with our scientists or there isn’t any such link to be made. And if there isn’t any such link to be made then someone needs to propose and test a mechanism capable of producing the anatomical and physiological differences. Survival of the fittest is insufficient.
Chill out guys. Give me some time and I’ll help settle this.
We are just breaking ground and stating our position- no problems
You both should be able to see this now. Let’s do a reset. I’ll answer in a moment.
How can that be? It doesn’t make any sense that then evidence is independent of any mechanism especially given the mechanism determines the pattern. And until you have some way to test your claim- about gene regulation being the difference- you don’t have any science to support your claim.
@JoeG watch it. You are starting to cross a line here. He does have evidence. You are just ignorant of it. Ask him to explain the evidence to you. Do not declare you ignorance as an argument like that.