The inner ear is a reverse piano

[Anguspure]

Yes semantics. Using the word "evolution" to describe the development of the wheel over time and "Design development" to describe the biological process of descent with modification.

Don't pretend otherwise, it's not very becoming.

Evolution did not develop the wheel over time (although the word is commonly used to describe the development of the motorcar), rather it was design, a designer that dunnit.
For example, this from Nature.com:

Evolution of the motor car

You have yet to demonstrate a "designer", "creator" or evidence of this design.

It seems to me to be an ad-hoc rationalization for the unavoidable evidence that we see in the fossil record.... life developing and diversifying over time.

Life doesn't do this all by itself, and no theory restricted to MN is competent to produce the observed effect.

Wherever we search for and observe apparent design in highly functionally coherent systems in the universe we are able to infer that the best explanation for the effect is a designer, until we get to biology, that is, where we are expected to suspend our rational faculties.

The problem is that if life evolved without the aid of this mysterious designer you want to include it would fit into a well defined nested hierarchy. In your situation.... "perhaps using some ideas from other places in different designs" we would likely see violations of that hierarchy, or no nested hierarchy at all, as we do with manufactured objects.

Decades ago, American Museum of Natural History paleontologist Gareth Nelson wrote, “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.” 18 In 1999, Nature editor Henry Gee wrote that “it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story— amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Wells, Jonathan. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (p. 32). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

So show us how nested hierachies show this evidence you claim to be interpreting.

Where there is a genuine timeline of development evident then a nested heirachy could show this progression.

Nested heirachies are a convenient tool for presenting change over time to the student.

They are a classification convention that assumes certain links.

People have been classifying organisms like this for centuries, and the result is a nested hierarchy: Daffodils and animals are nested in the set of living things; oysters and vertebrates are nested in the set of animals; frogs and birds are nested in the set of vertebrates; and robins and finches are nested in the set of birds. Over the centuries, most people have believed that this nested hierarchy reflects a divine plan of creation. Swedish biologist Carl von Linné (Latinized version: Linnaeus), who in the eighteenth century founded the modern science of taxonomy by naming and classifying plants and animals according to genus and species, believed this.

Wells, Jonathan. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (p. 25). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

​

But in the real world of biology the links are missing and inconsistent....

ACCORDING TO British biologist Ronald Jenner, without a good fossil record there is “little choice but to resort to our more-or-less informed imagination to produce the historical narratives that are the ultimate goal of our studies of animal evolution.” Indeed, “our imagination is the only tool that can braid the fragmentary evidence into a seamless historical narrative that relates the what, how, and why” of evolution. 17 The situation for evolutionists is actually worse than that. Even if we did have a good fossil record, we would still need to use our imagination to produce narratives about ancestor-descendant relationships.

Wells, Jonathan. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (p. 31). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[pitabread]

Wherever we search for and observe apparent design in highly functionally coherent systems in the universe we are able to infer that the best explanation for the effect is a designer,

That's not how design is detected though. Rather, it's via pattern recognition based on understanding of the mechanisms by how things come about.

This is something Intelligent Design lacks: a mechanism.

 

[Anguspure]

That's not how design is detected though. Rather, it's via pattern recognition based on understanding of the mechanisms by how things come about.

This is something Intelligent Design lacks: a mechanism.

Yes we recognise that highly functionally coherent systems only arise where knowledge, intelligence and intent are combined in creative design.

"In other words, whenever we think we would be unable to achieve a particular useful result without first learning how, we judge that result to be unattainable by accident."

Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (Kindle Locations 415-417). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

But can it be that those things which are most important and most essential for happiness do not call for intelligence, nor have any part in the processes of reason and forethought? Nobody wets clay with water and leaves it, assuming that by chance and accidentally there will be bricks, nor after providing himself with wool and leather does he sit down with a prayer to Chance that they turn into a cloak and shoes for him.

Plutarch, “Fortune,” trans. Frank Cole Babbitt, in Moralia, vol. 2, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1928), 87.

At the very low end of the scale are the many simple, everyday tasks that require very little thought, like the making of a bed, but that we know from experience are never accomplished without someone working to accomplish them. These things are far too simple to fascinate us but evidently too complicated to be done by accident. This realization seems to justify our sense that nothing impressive ever does happen by accident. Far beyond such simple things are the pinnacles of human technology, like robots and communications satellites and smartphones, which we also know can’t appear by accident. Finally, at the highest reaches of the complexity scale are the true
masterpieces— things like hummingbirds and dolphins— all of them alive, all of them eluding our best efforts to understand them. Some technophiles like to think that human ingenuity will one day produce their equal, and good things will surely come from rising to that challenge. To me, though, speaking as a fellow technophile, those masterpieces look positively untouchable.

Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (Kindle Locations 443-450). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 

[pitabread]

Yes we recognise that highly functionally coherent systems only arise where knowledge, intelligence and intent are combined in creative design.

Yes, you've asserted this before. No, it's not how design is actually detected.

Unless of course you can can point to a real-world application whereby there is an active methodology utilizing "highly functionally coherent systems" to detect design.

But since I've asked you this before and you couldn't, well...

 

[Anguspure]

Yes, you've asserted this before. No, it's not how design is actually detected.

Unless of course you can can point to a real-world application whereby there is an active methodology utilizing "highly functionally coherent systems" to detect design.

But since I've asked you this before and you couldn't, well...

I have shown you many pictures of alphabet soup in which a word appears. What you can see there is a functionally coherent system. Whether you wish to use the terminology or not, you will recognise the nature of that system.
It is an extremely simple ystem and yet if I told you that "Abiogenesis" dunnit, you would point out the design evident in the system and functional coherence would form a very complete part of your argument.

 

[pitabread]

I have shown you many pictures of alphabet soup in which a word appears.

Sure. And I recognize the word because of pattern recognition and pre-existing knowledge of the English language.

What you can see there is a functionally coherent system. Whether you wish to use the terminology or not, you will recognise the nature of that system.

Because of pattern recognition based on prior learned knowledge. That is how we recognize design.

And without that pre-existing knowledge of the English language, would you ever be able to tell the difference between a word versus a bunch of random letters?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have shown you many pictures of alphabet soup in which a word appears. What you can see there is a functionally coherent system.

-_- but if they were randomly assembled letters, they'd still be designed, because humans designed letters. Meaning is irrelevant to the arrangement of noodles being designed, because all noodles are designed. Yet, I wouldn't assume that the alphabet soup had the noodles intentionally arranged to spell out a word, because it seems quite feasible for that to happen by chance from time to time, given how many short words there are in English. Technically, I could view any stand alone a's and i's as independent words being spelled. Heck, I'd go so far as to say, given the circumstances, that alphabet soup noodles randomly spelling words from time to time is an inevitability.

Also, define coherent. A river carving out a canyon over millions of years is perfectly coherent with our understanding of erosion, but I wouldn't claim that the river had consciousness.

Whether you wish to use the terminology or not, you will recognise the nature of that system.
It is an extremely simple ystem and yet if I told you that "Abiogenesis" dunnit, you would point out the design evident in the system and functional coherence would form a very complete part of your argument.

No, that's not how I would describe abiogenesis at all. I'd describe it as natural processes resulting in a collection of molecules that can replicate the entire unit. I've never compared any aspect of abiogenesis to anything humans have invented in a serious context. Heck, calling it the primordial soup has always been a joke.

 

[Anguspure]

-_- but if they were randomly assembled letters, they'd still be designed, because humans designed letters. Meaning is irrelevant to the arrangement of noodles being designed, because all noodles are designed. Yet, I wouldn't assume that the alphabet soup had the noodles intentionally arranged to spell out a word, because it seems quite feasible for that to happen by chance from time to time, given how many short words there are in English. Technically, I could view any stand alone a's and i's as independent words being spelled. Heck, I'd go so far as to say, given the circumstances, that alphabet soup noodles randomly spelling words from time to time is an inevitability.

Yes, occasionally a 4 letter word like soup will appear in an alphabet soup.

Now consider this:
STARTING WITH SOUP A team of researchers in the culinary sciences recently discovered a revolutionary new soup they call oracle soup, referring to the oracles (mysterious revelations) the ancient Greeks sought from their gods. Indeed, had this soup been known in the days of Homer, it surely would have been attributed to a powerful god. It looks just like alphabet soup— thin broth with little pasta letters and numbers swirling around— but this “soup of the gods” distinguishes itself by what it does, as this experimental recipe shows:

1. Fill a large pot with oracle soup.
2. Cover the pot, and bring the soup to a boil.
3. Remove the pot from the heat, and let the soup cool.
4. Lift the lid to reveal complete instructions for building something new and useful, worthy of a patent— all spelled out in pasta letters.
5. Repeat from step 2 as often as desired.

You don’t believe a word of this, of course, and that’s precisely my point. This was actually a storytelling experiment instead of a kitchen experiment.

You were my experimental subject (sorry about that), but now I want you to examine the result. What did you observe? Well, in the space of a moment or two, you decided with complete confidence that oracle soup can’t be real— you and everyone else who reads the account. Interestingly, though, despite our collective certainty on this matter, most of us struggle to explain how we know oracle soup can’t be real. Our explanations tend to be nothing more than restatements of our conviction that soup simply can’t do such things. Children are content with those assurances, but adults surely ought to be able to do better. What makes us so sure oracle soup isn’t real, then?

Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (Kindle Locations 348-365). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Also, define coherent. A river carving out a canyon over millions of years is perfectly coherent with our understanding of erosion, but I wouldn't claim that the river had consciousness.

Does the river convey an abstract message, does it display an instruction for building something new and useful?

No, that's not how I would describe abiogenesis at all. I'd describe it as natural processes resulting in a collection of molecules that can replicate the entire unit. I've never compared any aspect of abiogenesis to anything humans have invented in a serious context. Heck, calling it the primordial soup has always been a joke.

So how does it happen? What is the method? Exactly how does a non-living chemical "soup" become a living, reproducing thing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Notwithstanding the fact that nested heirachies cannot be established consistently and differ according to the method used to build the tree displayed....

False.

why not?

Because when done on purpose, it is incredibly inneficient and wastefull.
No engineer designs his products that way without getting fired for being an amateur.

For a process like evolution however... nested hierarchies are the only possible outcome.

Development of any invention over time could be presented as a pretty tree.

Not as a nested hierarchy. Just not.
Not a SINGLE product line, not even from a single manufacturer, can be mapped in such a pattern. Living things can.

Nested heirachies are a convention of the student, they never ever appear like this in the real world.

False.

 

[Anguspure]

False.

DESPITE THE fact that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be empirically recovered from fossils, the modern biological literature is full of evolutionary trees— called “phylogenetic” trees— that supposedly show such relationships. The trees are typically accompanied by stories of how earlier organisms evolved into later ones. But phylogenetic trees don’t require ancestors. In fact, they don’t even require organisms.

In 2013, a science education group produced a lesson plan for teaching high school and college students how to construct a phylogenetic tree with differently shaped metal fasteners, pastas, or cookies.

Even though the objects are artificial, “the problems faced and the questions posed are similar to those addressed by paleontologists using specimens of fossils.” 20 The first guiding principle is: “Organisms that resemble each other in many ways are probably more closely related than are organisms that resemble each other only slightly. That is, the greater the similarity in structure (the more features in common), the closer the probable relationship between two forms.”

Students are instructed “to choose the smallest, simplest form as the probable common ancestor for the group and then try to arrange the others as branches of a tree derived from this ancestor.”........

There is no element of time or ancestral relationship in a cladogram. An evolutionary biologist may assert that the outgroup and ingroup are related through ancestry and descent, but there is nothing in a clado-gram itself that requires such a relationship.

Ancestors and transitional forms are left to the imagination. Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian acknowledges this even though he believes in evolution. (Indeed, he aggressively defends it.) As he explains, in a properly drawn phylogeny “extinct animals are no longer seen as direct ancestors of each other (‘ missing links’), but rather as representatives of a tree of life that help us to read the sequence of evolution of major features (not ‘transitional forms’).”

Since Padian considers it important to convince students of evolution, however, he recommends supplementing cladograms to make “evograms.” In other words, ancestral relationships are asserted despite the lack of evidence.

Wells, Jonathan. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (pp. 32-34). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

Because when done on purpose, it is incredibly inneficient and wastefull.
No engineer designs his products that way without getting fired for being an amateur.

Field testing is a legitmate and recognised part of design development. As is the production of study pieces in art before producing a final piece.

For a process like evolution however... nested hierarchies are the only possible outcome.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story— amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (New York: The Free Press, 1999), 32, 113– 117.

Not as a nested hierarchy. Just not.
Not a SINGLE product line, not even from a single manufacturer, can be mapped in such a pattern. Living things can.

If you believe it yourself anything is possible...

False

Real world example please?

 

[Jimmy D]

Evolution did not develop the wheel over time (although the word is commonly used to describe the development of the motorcar), rather it was design, a designer that dunnit.
For example, this from Nature.com:

Evolution of the motor car

I know. Which is why I questioned why you would describe the development of wheels as "evolution" and the development of life "design development". No big deal though, it's more funny than anything.

Life doesn't do this all by itself, and no theory restricted to MN is competent to produce the observed effect.

Wherever we search for and observe apparent design in highly functionally coherent systems in the universe we are able to infer that the best explanation for the effect is a designer, until we get to biology, that is, where we are expected to suspend our rational faculties.

Believe what you like, you aren't doing a very good job of convincing anyone else though.

I feel that you are expecting me to suspend my rational faculties when you posit a mysterious designer and can't provide anything to support your assertions other than "complicated things are designed".

 

[Anguspure]

Believe what you like, you aren't doing a very good job of convincing anyone else though.

I feel that you are expecting me to suspend my rational faculties when you posit a mysterious designer and can't provide anything to support your assertions other than "complicated things are designed".

Actually the percentage of the worlds population who buys the ND myth and denies thier basic faculties in the name of some supposed academic sophistication is very small.
The rest of us recognise design when we see it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Decades ago, American Museum of Natural History paleontologist Gareth Nelson wrote, “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.” 18 In 1999, Nature editor Henry Gee wrote that “it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story— amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Wells, Jonathan. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (p. 32). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

Great, uncredited quotes. What is the point? If you can't respond to what I said just say so, posting unrelated Wells' quotemines is a waste of everyone's time.

Do you understand why I said...

The problem is that if life evolved without the aid of this mysterious designer you want to include it would fit into a well defined nested hierarchy. In your situation.... "perhaps using some ideas from other places in different designs" we would likely see violations of that hierarchy, or no nested hierarchy at all, as we do with manufactured objects.

Where there is a genuine timeline of development evident then a nested heirachy could show this progression.

Nested heirachies are a convenient tool for presenting change over time to the student.

They are a classification convention that assumes certain links.

People have been classifying organisms like this for centuries, and the result is a nested hierarchy: Daffodils and animals are nested in the set of living things; oysters and vertebrates are nested in the set of animals; frogs and birds are nested in the set of vertebrates; and robins and finches are nested in the set of birds. Over the centuries, most people have believed that this nested hierarchy reflects a divine plan of creation. Swedish biologist Carl von Linné (Latinized version: Linnaeus), who in the eighteenth century founded the modern science of taxonomy by naming and classifying plants and animals according to genus and species, believed this.

Wells, Jonathan. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (p. 25). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

It seems obvious from your responses to myself and Dogmahunter that you do not really understand how nested hierarchies work or even what they represent.

Is suggest familiarizing yourself on the topic using credible sources other than your favourite book.

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually the percentage of the worlds population who buys the ND myth and denies thier basic faculties in the name of some supposed academic sophistication is very small.
The rest of us recognise design when we see it.

Maybe you would like to provide some idea of how you believe ID works. It's difficult to discuss it seriously as you have only presented is a vague concept.

What is the extent of this designer's influence? Earlier you suggested a gradual tinkering over the course of life on Earth, is that correct? Is your designer required every time we see a population adapting due to specific environmental conditions? Are the changes that "it" makes incremental or does "it" occasionally add whole new components, the ear you mention in the OP for example? Is this designer still active today?

 

[DogmaHunter]

DESPITE THE fact that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be empirically recovered from fossils, the modern biological literature is full of evolutionary trees— called “phylogenetic” trees— that supposedly show such relationships.

Phylogenetic trees are build from comparative genetics.
You can also build them from comparative anatomy (for which fossils can be used).
And they match. They even match geographic distribution of species.

The trees are typically accompanied by stories of how earlier organisms evolved into later ones. But phylogenetic trees don’t require ancestors. In fact, they don’t even require organisms.

They are the result of comparing organisms.

In 2013, a science education group produced a lesson plan for teaching high school and college students how to construct a phylogenetic tree with differently shaped metal fasteners, pastas, or cookies.

Even though the objects are artificial, “the problems faced and the questions posed are similar to those addressed by paleontologists using specimens of fossils.” 20 The first guiding principle is: “Organisms that resemble each other in many ways are probably more closely related than are organisms that resemble each other only slightly. That is, the greater the similarity in structure (the more features in common), the closer the probable relationship between two forms.”

Students are instructed “to choose the smallest, simplest form as the probable common ancestor for the group and then try to arrange the others as branches of a tree derived from this ancestor.”........

The difference being that living organisms actually reproduce, mutate and pass on their traits.

This is why we can determine who your relatives are from a set of random DNA samples.

There is no element of time or ancestral relationship in a cladogram. An evolutionary biologist may assert that the outgroup and ingroup are related through ancestry and descent, but there is nothing in a clado-gram itself that requires such a relationship.

Common ancestry of species is not an assertion. It's a genetic fact.
We understand how genetics works. We understand that we can compare genes and determine relationships between organisms.

Ancestors and transitional forms are left to the imagination. Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian acknowledges this even though he believes in evolution. (Indeed, he aggressively defends it.)

That's because we don't necessarily have access to those ancestors who are long dead.
That is not a problem in context of being able to determine common ancestry.

Let's zoom in on a lower level to make this clear.
Suppose a new born baby and his 2-year old brother become orphans. Their parents die in a plane crash in the open ocean and the bodies are never recovered. Let's say that literally all trace of them disappear for some reason.

By only having access to the DNA of both siblings, we can objectively determine that they share parents. Eventhough there is no trace of the parents anywhere.
We don't need to know who they were exactly. We don't need their bones or their DNA. Access to the siblings is more then enough to infer the existance of their common ancestor.

The very same applies at higher levels. We don't need access to ancestral species to be able to infer common ancestors of 2 or more extant species. We just need access to the extant species.

Field testing is a legitmate and recognised part of design development. As is the production of study pieces in art before producing a final piece.

This has absolutely no relevancy to the quote you are responding to.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story— amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (New York: The Free Press, 1999), 32, 113– 117.

Comparative anatomy is not just a bunch of blanket assertions.
And you keep going on about fossils. Fossils are nice, but there is MUCH better evidence, especially for nested hierarchies... It's called genetics.

If you believe it yourself anything is possible...

You are welcome to try.
Choose a productline, any productline.
And demonstrate how they map to a nested hierarchy.

I guarantee that you can't do it.

Real world example please?

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually the percentage of the worlds population who buys the ND myth and denies thier basic faculties in the name of some supposed academic sophistication is very small.
The rest of us recognise design when we see it.

Actually, the majority of christians have no issue with evolution.
99.99% of biologists, or even scientists in general, don't have any issue with it either.

Typically, those who have a problem with it can be categorised into two groups:
- religious fundamentalists
- people with no education in biology and no clue on how evolution actually works

 

[Anguspure]

Maybe you would like to provide some idea of how you believe ID works. It's difficult to discuss it seriously as you have only presented is a vague concept.

What is the extent of this designer's influence?

What is the normal influence of a designer?

Earlier you suggested a gradual tinkering over the course of life on Earth, is that correct?

Why not? When any designer designs and builds there is a tinkering process that takes place. Perhaps the deisgner is such that it set the wheels in motion and then only interferes at certain points where a bit of re-direction was required, perhaps a removal of some entropic build up, or the removal of a high entropy situation.

Is your designer required every time we see a population adapting due to specific environmental conditions?

We have already indentified a mechanism by which this happens in the system as designed so perhaps the deisgner is not a micro-manager.

Are the changes that "it" makes incremental or does "it" occasionally add whole new components, the ear you mention in the OP for example?

What is evident?

Is this designer still active today?

I don't know of any evidence that would indicate that the designer is active in the world today, but then the Scientific community is deliberately (on Methodoligical Naturalism) looking the other way so how would anybody know?

 

[Anguspure]

Actually, the majority of christians have no issue with evolution.
99.99% of biologists, or even scientists in general, don't have any issue with it either.

Typically, those who have a problem with it can be categorised into two groups:
- religious fundamentalists
- people with no education in biology and no clue on how evolution actually works

I don't have an issue with "evolution" either. Clearly biological forms have changed over time and clearly, over time, speciation and other tinkering has taken place through the mechanism of natural selection.

 

[Anguspure]

Phylogenetic trees are build from comparative genetics.
You can also build them from comparative anatomy (for which fossils can be used).
And they match. They even match geographic distribution of species.




They are the result of comparing organisms.



The difference being that living organisms actually reproduce, mutate and pass on their traits.

This is why we can determine who your relatives are from a set of random DNA samples.



Common ancestry of species is not an assertion. It's a genetic fact.
We understand how genetics works. We understand that we can compare genes and determine relationships between organisms.



That's because we don't necessarily have access to those ancestors who are long dead.
That is not a problem in context of being able to determine common ancestry.

Let's zoom in on a lower level to make this clear.
Suppose a new born baby and his 2-year old brother become orphans. Their parents die in a plane crash in the open ocean and the bodies are never recovered. Let's say that literally all trace of them disappear for some reason.

By only having access to the DNA of both siblings, we can objectively determine that they share parents. Eventhough there is no trace of the parents anywhere.
We don't need to know who they were exactly. We don't need their bones or their DNA. Access to the siblings is more then enough to infer the existance of their common ancestor.

The very same applies at higher levels. We don't need access to ancestral species to be able to infer common ancestors of 2 or more extant species. We just need access to the extant species.



This has absolutely no relevancy to the quote you are responding to.



Comparative anatomy is not just a bunch of blanket assertions.
And you keep going on about fossils. Fossils are nice, but there is MUCH better evidence, especially for nested hierarchies... It's called genetics.



You are welcome to try.
Choose a productline, any productline.
And demonstrate how they map to a nested hierarchy.

I guarantee that you can't do it.



View attachment 230963

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Nothing novel in any of this.

At best it demonstrates a common origin of thought.

This would also be expected if a designer put it all together over a period of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know of any evidence that would indicate that the designer is active in the world today, but then the Scientific community is deliberately (on Methodoligical Naturalism) looking the other way so how would anybody know?

Not "deliberatly". Rather, "by necessity". Science can only investigate that which is investigate-able.

You can't study that which is literally defined as being undetectable without any kind of direct or indirect manifestation.

Even if such a thing exists - how would you know?