Nesslig20
Active Member
leroy said:I will make a reply on the rest of your post within a few days.
Probably going to be the same question, Again and again and again.....and again.
leroy said:That comment is irrelevant since Behes concern has nothing to do with common ancestry, as far as I know Behe accepts common ancestry, his only concern is that according to him Darwinian mechanisms (mutations and natural selection) cant account for the diversity and complexity of life that we have.
You mentioned Irreducible complexity, as if it wasn't disproved, which it is for more then 10 years now!. And now you are pretending that this has nothing to do with Behe, which it obviously does.
He does indeed accept common ancestry, however he is still wrong with irreducible complexity. He has been shown to be wrong and I have shown you to be wrong with the citations I provide that you still are trying to ignore.
leroy said:the comment is also a straw man because those who deny common ancestry do not claim that the similarities between humans and other species are a product of chance.
It is not "just similarities" as I have explained before, but again, you have short term memory. It is the pattern of both the presence of similarities or common traits and the absence of them, the differences. And this pattern forms a twin nested hierarchy (an evolutionary tree) that taxonomy revealed a hundred years before Darwin was alive and just become more robust over time.
But this get conclusive with genetics. Just like we can calculate, based on a paternity test, that the probability (or better yet, the certainty) of the child being that of the father (or not) is 99% Thus practically certain that he is the father.
The certainty of all life related is >99,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...etc
And the certainty that humans are related to other species is >99,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999....etc
And that is just from genetics alone and no competing hypothesis that explains why we even have common genetic markers with other life forms that form the same twin nested hierarchy. Design doesn't predict this, just like design doesn't predict that two unrelated people would be tested as 99% certain to have a parental relationship on a paternity test.
"Unless the designer made it such to give the illusion that all life is related just to test our faith."
But common design DOES predict this.
leroy said:But why cant I simply use the anthropic principle (multiverse theory for example) to explain that probability? .............if we wouldn't have 97% similarities with chimps we wouldn't be wondering why chimps and humans have a 97% similarity. ..........in other words observers that ask this question can only exist in universes where chimps and humans have a 97% similarity.
Now you are just rambling nonsense. The anthropic principle relates to either of these two things.
1. Humans require a specific environment within the universe to live.
2. Humans require a specific universe (with specific physical properties) to exists.
How the fuck are either of these related to genetics at all??
And we don't just say that we are related with chimps just because we are 97% similar genetically, though that is a strong indication, but it wasn't the definitive factor. It is shared genetic markers that we have: orthologs, ERVs, shared pseudogenes (how does design explain that). Fusion of chromosome number 2, which was predicted by common descent.
leroy said:I am not accusing you in particular, but many atheist (Dawkins for example) use the anthropic principle to get away with the probabilities that theist provide, so why cant I do the same?..........this is really an honest question, I really what to know about your thoughts on the anthropic principle and on weather if we should use it or not to explain away probabilistic problems.
Because you have no idea what those things even are. You are literally saying something absurd like this.
"If fishermen can use a rod catching fish, why can't I use a rod to fix my car?"