you are closer genetically to any other human being on Earth than are two chimps living on opposite sides of the same mountain in Africa.Granted. Now how much closer? The claim that chimps are 5% or 1.4% different than humans is not particularly informative without a basis for comparison.
Common Designer is just as valid a hypothesis, unless one dogmatically rules it out in advance regardless of the evidence due to a personal choice.
Common Designer implies common ancestry. I'll cop to a slight semantic stretch at this point, of course, but even assuming the existence of a common designer, it still shows that he/she/it/they made people out of monkey parts. The thing is, we have a clear time line for the emergence of primates. Work backwards in time along the fossil record and the skulls of our ancestors become increasingly ape-like.
In the meantime, the Designer Hypothesis is not rejected because of dogma, or anti-religious fervor, or because of powerful mind-control rays from hyper-intelligent, 7-dimensional guppies. It's rejected because of a lack of evidence on the one hand, and a lack of unique predictions on the other. Put together and it's hard to make much of a case.
We already have "something that could"- an intelligent designer.
But no evidence to support that hypothesis. I'm also going to contest that "intelligent" bit. A sophomore in any ME program in the country can propose a laundry list of structural and engineering improvements in the human body this "intelligent designer" fellow somehow overlooked. And this without even putting down their beer or looking up from the PS2.
The second group should be able to use stats to show how absurd is the idea of evolution in this case
Only if the second group was fully conversant with the initial conditions at the period in time when the glow-in-the-dark mice first appeared in the animal kingdom. Without that info, calculating statistical improbability it just guesswork with a slide rule.
Hmmm. Your tagline on post #42 was "Fact-based crevo threads have the life expectancy of a glass hammer.)
"
That was clearly in response to our fact-based posts which immediately preceded it. Then it becomes clear (post #44) that the numbers make the evolutionary hypothesis untenable and suddenly, by post #47 (#45 even!), "calculating statistical improbability it just guesswork with a slide rule" unless intital conditions are fully known.
Within five posts you comepletly change your opinion as to the value of this debate. Why is that C-man?
Your claims that there is "no evidence" for the design hypothesis is as those who looked through Galieo's telescope and claimed they could not see the moons of Jupiter. The evidence SCREAMS design. The look at the numbers on this thread is just one tiny part of that.
Likewise with you claim that the Design Hypothesis makes no unique predictions. I posted a thread which gave a testable design model. It had lot's of predictions, but once again evos looked into the telescope and claimed to see nothing.
The EVO hypothesis has the very same problem with unique predictions as the design hypothesis. Most of the things it claims as support are really just as much evidence for common designer- shared DNA being a case in point.
As for your scoffing that any sophomore ME could suggest improvements on our design, I would say that it would be more a reflection of the ignorance and arrogance the ME rather than any weakness in the human design itself.
We are an engineering marvel unmatched by any of our works. If we knew more about how we are really put together, those presumed weaknesses would not look so weak. I saw a great example of how our 'backwards eye' was actually a brilliant innovation. I wish I could remember the details.
None of that matters though, because that is not what this thread is about. It is about the Human - Chimp gene gap and whether it is a gap that could have reasonably been crossed. Up until your tagline on #42, you thought this thread was about facts, by post #47, once it was clear the facts were not going your way, you now decide it is about "guesswork".