However the simple evidence of the similarity in the genomes should have been very convincing. [That evolution had taken place and that chimps were related to humans]
I don't think so. If I were designing a bunch of living things, I would do a lot of reuse. I'd pretty much design each separate animal by modifying the design of other animals like it.
So I'd wind up with chimps and humans having a lot of overlap in their genome, too. Even with a designer instead of an evolver.
If I were designing a bunch of living things, I would do a lot of reuse. I'd pretty much design each separate animal by modifying the design of other animals like it.
But would you only sample from one ancestor? Why, when we were adapted from climbing trees to running on the savanna, did our designer elect to twist chimpanzee feet into some weird new shape instead of just borrowing the feet from ostriches or something?
I'm a programmer and an engineer I don't buy this re-use argument. When I make a new design, I sample from everything I possibly can, not ...
Today's post, But There's Still A Chance, Right? was originally published on 06 January 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was A Failed Just-So Story, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.