Genetic vs. Physical comparison of Chimps and Humans

It occurs to me that there is a reasonable prediction of ID or special creation. That is, that animals would only be as similar as they "need" to be. They would have loner legs to run, fangs for a carnivorous diet etc. They would not however, be any more similar than that.They would show the same or less similarity as there is between placental and marsupial forms. Only "skin-deep" in a way of speaking.In this view the existance of marsupial and placetal forms can be taken as a suggestion of support for the ID idea. However, since humand and chimps do NOT follow the convergent pattern they do NOT exhibit support for the ID suggestion.They should be just as different internally as the thylocine and the wolf are. Their brains should be organized at least as differently as ours are from the birds (especially the corvids). However, they are not.Clearly this hints that, at best, the marsupials (as a whole) are a "kind". While the placentals are another "kind".The IDists don't have to thank me (which they may not anyway ) they just have to try to manage a little of their own reasoning of a similar (but not identical type ).

It seems to me that, in order to make such predictions, one would need a set of principles (or rules, or laws) that can be used to govern the predictions.For example, when you say "would only be as similar as they 'need' to be", we might wonder what exactly is basis for assessing that 'need' and how do we determine/specify what we should take to be the 'need'.I think your point is that the ID proponents have an abstract core, which they could extend into a scientific hypothesis just by providing the principles that connect their abstract core ideas to physical reality. I agree with that. I would like to see the ID proponents develop such principles. They would then have an empirical hypothesis that could be put to the test.

I appreciate the encouragement, but I don't start threads that I don't intend to fully participate in, and I don't have the theological background (or, as an agnostic, the interest) to say anything meaningful about animal souls. If someone else would like to pick it up (prophex?) that would be fine by me.

Convergent evolution belongs elsewhere. We don't seem to have an appropriate open topic, although there is the Randman topic Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?, which was closed at 311 messages.Predictions of ID belongs elsewhere. Check the Intelligent Design index page for possibilities.The topic theme is clear - The topic title is "Genetic vs. Physical comparison of Chimps and Humans".Adminnemooseus

---