= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brandon_Berg comments on But There's Still A Chance, Right? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (52)
Even from a creationist perspective, it doesn't make sense to attribute the similarities to coincidence. A better explanation would be deliberate code reuse.
Of course, from what we know about genetics, God is a very kludgy engineer.
I think what's actually going on here is "arguments are soldiers": If the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident, that would be bad for evolution; evolution is the enemy; therefore I should argue that maybe the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident.
Never do they stop to think that not only is this obviously untrue, it would also undermine THEIR theory as well. The implicit assumption is that anything bad for my opponent is good for me and vice-versa.
Actually, what exactly are the arguments/evidence that distinguish these two hypotheses? - Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. - God tweaked the ape (or common ancestor) blueprint to create the human blueprint.
I'm pretty new at evolutionary biology so I don't really know... anyone want to point me in the right direction?