Replies

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".

Oh come on, Ahban, don't tell me you misread my post THAT badly!

Within five posts you comepletly change your opinion as to the value of this debate. Why is that C-man?

The chimp and the human genome can be directly compared for similarity. Unfortunately the comparisons are often reported as pure numbers and without the background, I don't know exactly what "5% similarity" actually means in real-world terms. Calculating statistical probabilities of events that have already occured, a popular ID/Creationist past time, is an exercise in retroactive astonishment. The odds, for example, that SOME guy wins the lottery are far greater than the odds that it's going to be THAT guy.

The evidence SCREAMS design.

Now whose bias is showing?

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.

I recall seeing that thread in existence, but honestly don't remember actively participating. Got a link?

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...If we knew more about how we are really put together, those presumed weaknesses would not look so weak.

For humans, the knee, the spine, and male nipples immediately spring to mind. As do the pelvic structure of ceatceans and snakes, and the eyes of the golden mole. And I'm not even ME (Mechanical Engineer, for the lurkers). The human body exhibits sufficience; I would expect an intelligently designed organism to exhibit optimization.

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".

Again, chimp-human genome comparison studies are about fact. My comment about "guesswork" was in direct response to your statement regarding the ability of scientists 500 years from now to calculate the probability of the natural emergence of a rogue band of free-ranging, glow-in-the-dark mice. Not about chimp-human genome comparisons. My apologies if I was less than clear. (As an aside, I would be quick to point out that glow-in-the-dark mice would likely experience a significant predatory disadvantage compared to their non-luminescent brethren. A blinking, neon "Eat at Joe's" sign comes to mind for some reason... heheh...)

Regarding the "glass hammer" tagline, this thread has garnered almost 50 whole posts in a single week. Didja happen to notice that you and I are currently the only ones participating? The Russian silver fox thread suffered a similar fate. Now compare to the public policy debate threads. The Texas Tech prof thread, for example, was posted a day before this one and is almost up to 350 posts. Generally speaking, policy debates drag on forever, while the new discovery threads are subjected to a flurry of ID/Creationist drive-bys and are quickly abandoned. You are one of the few that actually stick around to hash out the facts, for which I do give you credit.