Genetics and Human Brain Evolution

Of course you can logically conclude this. And not just 'better' accounted for; design PERFECTLY accounts for these differences. Of course, we're not talking about just any design and designer. Herbie tinkering in his garage down the street couldn't pull it off. We need a designer with almost perfect knowledge of what changes effect what results and how to implement those results, i. e., a god type of designer and a divine design. Of course, even if a crustacean genome had changed into an elephant genome in 27 days, the design inference is a perfectly logical explanation. If it was found that horses had PVC pipe for veins and a polyester bellows for a heart, the (divine) design inference is a perfectly logical explanation for such a finding. In fact, eggasai, this is exactly reason evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Such findings would result in the theory of evolution being totally reworked or rejected. In fact, this is exactly why the design inference is NOT a scientific theory. It can pass any evidentiary test and thus cannot shed any light on what, how, or why anything exists the way it does.The problem with the design inference is not that it is illogical, but that it is useless.The evolutionary inference is pretty good but still IMperfect, primarily due to imperfect knowledge that is constantly being improved. Its real strength is that it is so extremely useful. In almost all fields of biology. Even if all the species were created 6000 years ago (or last tuesday for that matter) in exactly their current form and with exactly their current genome, the evolutionary inference would be extremely useful in systematizing biology, analyzing function through comparative anatomy, and determining developmental and biochemical pathways through comparative genomics. This is simply because whatever the process or agent that would have created them did so in a manner that makes the evolutionary paradigm work so extremely well.