Even from a creationist perspective, it doesn’t make sense to attribute the similarities to coincidence. A better explanation would be deliberate code reuse.
I think what’s actually going on here is “arguments are soldiers”: If the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident, that would be bad for evolution; evolution is the enemy; therefore I should argue that maybe the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident.
Never do they stop to think that not only is this obviously untrue, it would also undermine THEIR theory as well. The implicit assumption is that anything bad for my opponent is good for me and vice-versa.
Yes. Of course I see a lot of the same kinds of weirdness in the low-level implementations of computer programs built with high-level code generators.
Whether our genome was created by a pre-existing intelligence using some kind of advanced creature creation software or arose entirely out of selection pressures over time is difficult to gather evidence on, let alone prove. But from a computer programmer’s point of view it’s a pretty awe-inspiring system. Major adaptability AND major stability AND self-assembling.
It would be like finding five million lines of computer code stashed away that’s capable of rewriting itself for piloting anything from a motorcycle to the space shuttle. The fact that it’s a giant ball of muddy spaghetti makes it hard to manipulate for your own purposes, but doesn’t make the end result any less impressive.
And that’s kind of the problem with assigning importance to the argument. If our universe is not, in fact, the top-level reality and has some kind of master controlling its every detail we necessarily only get to his influence to the extent that he wishes us to...
Natural selection molding creatures to match the universe? We can see that happening pretty well.
The universe itself being molded to produce a particular type of creature? How exactly would we even be able to notice that?
The only thing I can personally think of is that, in such a scenario, a universe where the inhabitants somehow developed the ability to more correctly divine the will of their creator from subtle clues and/or racial memory would be less likely to get mushed up and tossed in the wastepaper basket...
Or religion could be just a random side-effect of evolution that merely doesn’t hurt us badly enough to offset the power of our brains...
Perhaps if we someday discover other, unrelated sapient life and it also has religion… Still wouldn’t be proof, but likely to be the most conclusive evidence we could get without either a time machine to go back and see where the old religions really started or some way to look at our universe from outside.
Even from a creationist perspective, it doesn’t make sense to attribute the similarities to coincidence. A better explanation would be deliberate code reuse.
I think what’s actually going on here is “arguments are soldiers”: If the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident, that would be bad for evolution; evolution is the enemy; therefore I should argue that maybe the similarity between chimps and humans occurred totally by accident.
Never do they stop to think that not only is this obviously untrue, it would also undermine THEIR theory as well. The implicit assumption is that anything bad for my opponent is good for me and vice-versa.
Of course, from what we know about genetics, God is a very kludgy engineer.
Yes. Of course I see a lot of the same kinds of weirdness in the low-level implementations of computer programs built with high-level code generators.
Whether our genome was created by a pre-existing intelligence using some kind of advanced creature creation software or arose entirely out of selection pressures over time is difficult to gather evidence on, let alone prove. But from a computer programmer’s point of view it’s a pretty awe-inspiring system. Major adaptability AND major stability AND self-assembling.
It would be like finding five million lines of computer code stashed away that’s capable of rewriting itself for piloting anything from a motorcycle to the space shuttle. The fact that it’s a giant ball of muddy spaghetti makes it hard to manipulate for your own purposes, but doesn’t make the end result any less impressive.
Actually, what exactly are the arguments/evidence that distinguish these two hypotheses?
Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
God tweaked the ape (or common ancestor) blueprint to create the human blueprint.
I’m pretty new at evolutionary biology so I don’t really know… anyone want to point me in the right direction?
And that’s kind of the problem with assigning importance to the argument. If our universe is not, in fact, the top-level reality and has some kind of master controlling its every detail we necessarily only get to his influence to the extent that he wishes us to...
Natural selection molding creatures to match the universe? We can see that happening pretty well.
The universe itself being molded to produce a particular type of creature? How exactly would we even be able to notice that?
The only thing I can personally think of is that, in such a scenario, a universe where the inhabitants somehow developed the ability to more correctly divine the will of their creator from subtle clues and/or racial memory would be less likely to get mushed up and tossed in the wastepaper basket...
Or religion could be just a random side-effect of evolution that merely doesn’t hurt us badly enough to offset the power of our brains...
Perhaps if we someday discover other, unrelated sapient life and it also has religion… Still wouldn’t be proof, but likely to be the most conclusive evidence we could get without either a time machine to go back and see where the old religions really started or some way to look at our universe from outside.