All there is is a strong desire to be related.

What part of that don’t you understand?

Your argument requires you to assume something about how the designer would do something.

It does?

Can you be specific?

Common design doesn’t say anything about “how”.

And again common design is based on observations and experience. Nothing religious.

However Gould insisting that a designer wouldn’t do something is just nonsensical.

That isn’t based on anything except wishful thinking.

IOW you cannot understand simple points.

And I take it that you’re not going to explain the circularity required for common ancestry?!

I am still waiting for a way to objectively test the premise.

If one doesn’t start out with the assumption of common ancestry then one doesn’t get there via the scientific data.

The fossil record doesn’t help.

Genetics doen’t help.

So what do you have?

Still no valid reasoning for why my inference is a religious assumption.

Thanks I knew you couldn’t do it- that is provide a valid reason.

I know I didn’t use any religious assumptions because I don’t care about religion.

Sigh. Your argument requires you to assume something about how the designer would do something. This is what Cornelius calls a religious assumption.

You know how Cornelius was comlaining about saying that Gould stated that the designer would NOT make such a bad thumb for the panda? You are doing the same thing. But then I’ve already said this before…

As I said there isn’t any reason to infer humans and chimps share a common ancestor except to want to.

I say that because there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible.

There isn’t any calculation nor measurement.

All there is is a strong desire to be related.

What part of that don’t you understand?

What I don’t understand is how you can’t understand some simple points.

The mechanisms responsible for common ancestry could include a designer adding the odd gene here and there between generations. If a designer couldn’t even do that, we could hardly expect it to design things de novo.

And I take it that you’re not going to explain the circularity required for common ancestry?!

How can you say that magic IS necessary? What is the basis for that? I view that as an assertion that has absolutely no evidential support.

Eeeeh, I never did. YOU claimed that it was NOT necessary.

Me: “No, it is a logical assumption. If there is a designer, then he does not need to use magic to design. Could he use magic? Of course, but he doesn’t need to. Your view of a designer is more religious than mine.”

Hoki: “You have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans were/could be designed. How can you say that magic isn’t necessary. Oh, I know, you made a religious assumption.”

Correct, I have no idea how they were designed, but I have evidence that they were designed. That would seem to be a more powerful support than the how.

I think you make too much of mechanisms. Darwinism has not yet shown how the mechanism of RM + NS works. It all appears as a guessing game, and part of that game is to confirm what you are trying to prove.

How can you say that magic IS necessary? What is the basis for that? I view that as an assertion that has absolutely no evidential support.

Since you don’t know that magic is necessary for a designer to design, the only thing that you can really state is that magic is not needed. Besides that, what precisely do you mean by magic? I perceive magic from a naturalistic perspective as a slight of hand – a trick. I don’t see magic from a “supernatural” perspective whatsoever – so that would actually be a moot point.

You have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans were/could be designed. How can you say that magic isn’t necessary?

Because magic has never been demonstrated to do anything.

In the same light you have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans could evolve from non-humans.

So you rely on magical mystery mutations and father time.

That is your religious assumption.

That throw father time and magical mystery mutations together and “poof”…

You don’t even understand that a hypothesis doesn’t need to offer an exclusive explanation for a set of observations.

Irrelevant as you didn’t provide a testable hypothesis for your non-telic position.

IOW your alleged hypothesis doesn’t test anything.

Which means you are OK with having common design and convergence taught in science classrooms as they explain the same data as UCD.

That’s a rather blatant non-sequitur.

How is that non-sequitor?

Science classrooms should be allowed to discuss ALL relevant hypotheses.

If they are not allowed to do so then they ain’t teaching science they are indoctrinating dogma.

Hoki:

Seems to me that you won’t provide any evidence because you can’t.

I provided an explanation and it isn’t my problem that you can’t understand it:

As I said there isn’t any reason to infer humans and chimps share a common ancestor except to want to.

All there is is a strong desire to be related.

What part of that don’t you understand?

Still no valid reasoning for why my inference is a religious assumption.

Thanks I knew you couldn’t do it- that is provide a valid reason.

I know I didn’t use any religious assumptions because I don’t care about religion.

You’re taking the real world for granted. On the assumption of evolution, the real world didn’t have to be the way it is, and therefore, humans budding from the earlobes of chimps is no stranger than humans and chimps existing in the first place.

Lest you don’t think I understand or am trying to avoid your argument, let me say this:

Even using evolution as a condition in probability calculations, I realise that the probability of humans/chimps/budding ever coming to exist is minute, to say the least. (The same applies to ID as well, btw).

I’m going to fundamentals, of how things could be on the assumption of evolution, you should go there with me, and not argue from how things are now.

I will not go there with you, since those “fundamentals” are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There is no reason why I should limit myself to using evolution as my only assumption.

Art Hunt sez the following:

Melzer et al. constructed double mutants deficient in the expression of these two proteins, with the intent of understanding the physiological significance of interactions between these two proteins, associations discovered using the so-called yeast two-hybrid assay.

IOW nothing natural about the process.