Joined: May 2006
|Physical dissimilarities are not significant. The real significance is in the genetic findings (like a broken vitamin C gene.)|
Physical dissimilarities would be important if complete novelty were discovered. The physical differences that we see between chimps and humans, on the other hand, appear not to be novel (except to the extent that any change is in some manner "novel") nor especially great. They are trying to make the most of the differences there are, naturally, especially the ones that would lead one to suppose that we have a "soul".
You know, where are the great differences between humans and chimps, like cephalopod eyes in one of them, different numbers of limbs, or the ability to hear ultrasound, or see infrared? These would be shocking differences indeed (and heightened sensory capability seems appropriate for the pinnacle of creation--oddly enough, dogs got the better part of hearing and olfaction), and might be difficult to explain. Instead they point to intellectual differences from a brain which is made from roughly the same genes as chimp brains, not even caring to explain why that is (except to say that it is done by magic).
Essentially there is a continuity between australopithecus and humanity in the fossil record, and as creationists and IDists have been so kind to point out, australopithecus is "just an ape".
The trouble for them is that the differences do not seem very great, except perhaps quantitatively (our symbolic representation capacity seems to have reached a threshold), and, as always, they are uninterested in providing an explanation for the great number of similarities. By right, they should first explain (rather than excuse by saying 'the designer did it' how it is that humans and chimps are made of roughly the same morphological parts and genes, with a little new stuff, before they begin to raise the issues of differences. Were they able to account for the similarities, we might have some hope that they'd know something about the differences. They have no interest in explanation, though, and only wish to question the explanations that work so well.
I only skimmed the chapter, but I thought this was amazingly naive, err, stupid:
|Evolutionists may be right that large complex brains have an inherent selective advantage.|
Of course we don't say that large complex brains have an inherent selective advantage. In fact a number of explanations for our brains appeal to competition within hominid groups, since it might make sense that better brains bring a sexual advantage, while hominids appeared to be more vulnerable to environmental shocks than were many other animals. Once more they fundamentally misunderstand evolution, which I guess explains why they're IDists.
Remember when they used to complain that we called them creationists and said that they didn't believe in evolution? It looks like they're more than happy to attack the "evolutionists" now, moving even further from their old pretense that they were simply trying to explain about evolution what isn't fully explained today by "Darwinism".
So it's the same old BS, the hominim transitionals gave us gaps that aren't filled (they almost say that any intermediate fossil gives them two new gaps to replace the old one), humans are qualitatively different from apes--whatever creationists were saying before the bright new coming of ID, sans the 6000 years claptrap. Any possible challenges in court are becoming easier and easier for us.
The sad thing is that this antievolutionary nonsense is tried and true PR, and will be believed by many by reason of its hackneyed, illiterate, and unintelligent treatment of evolution.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy