Functional differences is a poorly defined term, but this claim is usually accepted by anti-evolution in regards to Humans and Mice. If you dispute it, go ahead and make your case that humans and chimps are more similar than mice rats. If you want to go that direction, it will surely be entertaining, and we should start another thread.
Perhaps. In that case you have evidentially ruled out that mechanism of guidance. Another strawman down. Keep at it.
I agree with you, especially knowing what we now know. I mean rather that a priori, we did not know if biology would be this way, but it is.
In the same way, a priori you are right. In light of our knowledge of biology, however, not so much.
Yes. That is there, but it is not implicit. I stated it several times in different ways. If that is how you want to put it, go ahead. Honestly, there is some good clarity to it, so I’ll use it too. That is what rules out things like adding history-less chromosomes and such. That would only a parsimonious means if God is trying to communicate to us through DNA. It can’t be justified by the end of creating animals with the “human-condition.”
Thanks for that language. Once again, it is fairly entertaining how easy it is to come to terms with a reasonably resistant atheist scientist. Then I remember the last three decades, and becomes a bit more depressing. @John_Harshman, what we are resolving in a couple hours on the internet, people have dedicated decades of their career to arguing over. Crazy right?