A Question for Creationists

[Rational Agnostic]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

 

[PureX]

Unless those difference are part of the "design". Which they clearly are.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Unless those difference are part of the "design". Which they clearly are.

Wouldn't any functioning system give the illusion of design, even if it wasn't so?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Unless those difference are part of the "design". Which they clearly are.

Designed to look like they evolved? So god's trying to fool us?

 

[Altfish]

Designed to look like they evolved? So god's trying to fool us?

Yup, he's a right old trickster this here god bloke. Loves to send us on false trails. Next thing you know he'll be condoning slavery in that there book he wrote.

 

[Sapiens]

Loki! Loki! Loki!

 

[Sanzbir]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morpholog dy (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

So I'm not a creationist.

My Faith and and holy writings even declare evolution correct.

There are plenty of good arguments for evolution.

This, however?? This is not one of them.

You see, there's a philosophy in Computer Science called "Don't Repeat Yourself", or DRY. Basically the philosophy states you should never design the same thing twice, and you should use code that you have already written if it performs the same functions as your new project needs to leverage.

So, an intelligent designer, when writing computer code, will reuse things whenever possible to create a sleek, efficient design.

If there was a designer who designed all of the existing animals in their current form, they would reuse their genetic code whenever it served their purpose. Doing so is simply good design.

Again, evolution is obviously true, but that doesn't mean that this particular argument you make here isn't a bad one.

 

[whirlingmerc]

When we compare human DNA with the DNA of chimps and bonobos, we see 98-99% similarity. When we compare with other apes, such as gorillas, slightly less, and slightly less still for orangutans and other monkeys (if my memory is correct). The similarities decrease when we look at other mammals to around 80-something percent for dogs and maybe around 70-ish for mice (these are rough figures from my memory, but the general idea is correct). As we move toward other taxonomic groups of animals other than other mammals, we see increasingly less similarity. In other words, DNA analysis is confirming previous assumptions about genetic relationships based upon morphology (appearance). How can you reconcile this data with intelligent design? Genetic similarities clearly indicate common ancestry, with closer genetic relationships (higher percentage of DNA in common) indicating more recent common ancestry, and lower percentages of DNA in common indicating more distant common ancestry. All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

Those measure are problematic.... in fact older studies had higher correlation numbers probably because of cross contamination of samples and as clean room practices improved the numbers degraded

Bigger problem is that only a small amount of chimp genome was mapped and it was done piecemeal and used a human genome as the scaffolding which causes a bias by itself

In the end a realistic number is probably more like 85% and if you think about it we are mostly water
so... we evolved from water? well no...

 

[Quintessence]

All of this makes perfect sense under evolutionary theory, but no sense at all if species were intelligently designed.

It doesn't? Could you elaborate a bit here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those measure are problematic.... in fact older studies had higher correlation numbers probably because of cross contamination of samples and as clean room practices improved the numbers degraded

Bigger problem is that only a small amount of chimp genome was mapped and it was done piecemeal and used a human genome as the scaffolding which causes a bias by itself

In the end a realistic number is probably more like 85% and if you think about it we are mostly water
so... we evolved from water? well no...

You are mistaken. There are several ways to measure similarity. When the same criteria are used we get the same results today. Contamination and bias were not part of the answer. What creationists cannot answer is how all life fits into a nested hierarchy. If we use a "more accurate" method where the differences are 85% we still see the same nested hierarchy merely with greater differences. All you have done is to change the numbers, you still have not answered the problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't? Could you elaborate a bit here?

What reason would an omniscient, omnipotent god have for installing a nested hierarchy that points to evolution? If all life was created there is no reason to find such a hierarchy at all. "Reusing design" is only excusable if your god is not omnipotent and omniscient. We would not see clear examples of bad design.

 

[PureX]

Wouldn't any functioning system give the illusion of design, even if it wasn't so?

It's not an illusion. It IS design. When the expression of energy is being guided by a set of parameters that produce a specific result, that set of parameters is called process "design", and it infers intent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not an illusion. It IS design. When the expression of energy is being guided by a set of parameters that produce a specific result, that set of parameters is called process "design", and it infers intent.

So then examples of bad design just tell us that God is incompetent.

 

[PureX]

So then examples of bad design just tell us that God is incompetent.

Not unless you somehow can infer that the design, as it exists, was not God's intent. But since the intent is built into the design by it's result, that would be logically impossible to infer, I think.

 

[Quintessence]

What reason would an omniscient, omnipotent god have for installing a nested hierarchy that points to evolution?

Okay, pardon... can we be back up a second? No specific god-concept was invoked by the opening post, but you are implying one here. Can you reframe this in a way that doesn't presume some particular god-concept? Would reframing in this fashion change your thoughts on this at all?

If all life was created there is no reason to find such a hierarchy at all.

There's not? I'm still not seeing it, sorry.
I notice that most humans do a lot of projecting human expectations onto the gods. Is that what is going on here somewhere?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not unless you somehow can infer that the design, as it exists, was not God's intent. But since the intent is built into the design by it's result, that would be logically impossible to infer, I think.

Sorry, circular arguments are fails all by themselves. And you clearly do not know bad design when you see it.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, pardon... can we be back up a second? No specific god-concept was invoked by the opening post, but you are implying one here. Can you reframe this in a way that doesn't presume some particular god-concept? Would reframing in this fashion change your thoughts on this at all?

Usually when people invoke a god it has those traits. But if someone wants to claim a limited god then I would be willing to engage them on that.

There's not? I'm still not seeing it, sorry.
I notice that most humans do a lot of projecting human expectations onto the gods. Is that what is going on here somewhere?

Since gods are human creations expecting human behavior from them is perfectly reasonable. Let me put it this way, there is no reason that a god could not make a creature that breaks phylogeny. Yet we don't see that. We don't see mammals with feathers or reptiles that produce milk. Created life need not follow a pattern that is identical to what would appear if life evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not unless you somehow can infer that the design, as it exists, was not God's intent. But since the intent is built into the design by it's result, that would be logically impossible to infer, I think.

Wrong again. If you want to claim that a god exists the burden of proof is upon you. Until then we understand how life evolved. You are trying to use a tautology, that is a logical fallacy on your part.

 

[PureX]

Wrong again. If you want to claim that a god exists the burden of proof is upon you. Until then we understand how life evolved.

You seem to be somewhat confused about the issue. Creationists are saying that the mechanisms of DNA are part of the intended "design". Not that DNA doesn't exist, or that DNA is of no significant effect in the emergence and ongoing nature of life forms. That existence is "designed" is undeniable. That this design reflects intelligence and infers intent, is likewise undeniable, though it's also not fully provable.

You are trying to use a tautology, that is a logical fallacy on your part.

Tautologies are not automatically fallacious. "I think, there I am" is a tautology, and yet it is ultimately the only truth that we can know.

Existence IS intelligent design being expressed. And design innately infers it's own purpose. But this doesn't logically create any arguments between creationists and non-creationists, because it neither proves no disproves the existence of any gods, nor their hand in the creative process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be somewhat confused about the issue. Creationists are saying that the mechanisms of DNA are part of the intended "design". Not that DNA doesn't exist, or that DNA is of no significant effect in the emergence and ongoing nature of life forms. That existence is "designed" is undeniable. That this design reflects intelligence and infers intent, is likewise undeniable, though it's also not fully provable.

You are very confused about the nature of evidence and proof. I am not the confused one here. Creationists are simply wrong. Let's leave it at that.

Tautologies are not automatically fallacious. "I think, there I am" is a tautology, and yet it is ultimately the only truth that we can know.

So you don't know what a logical fallacy is either.

Existence IS intelligent design being expressed. And design innately infers it's own purpose. But this doesn't logically create any arguments between creationists and non-creationists, because it neither proves no disproves the existence of any gods, nor their hand in the creative process.

Another unsupported claim. Where shall we begin?