Why do atheists claim that genetic similarities prove a common ancestor rather than a common designer?

Question

When I write a computer program with C++ or Java for work, I often use libraries or classes I had written previously. I am re-using code that was already written. For instance, "filelib.h" and "string.h" are libraries I use in nearly all of my programs. Furthermore, I've written a lot of useful classes over the years that I re-use in programs to this day. Essentially, a lot of code are commonalities with other programs. Does this mean all the programs just evolved from the other? No! It proves that they had the same coder, or designer! How does this possibility elude the foolish atheists?

Answer 1

Why do Christians not understand that people that accept facts like evolution are not all atheist? You do know there are other religions right? And if any religion is false (as all are) it's definitely Christianity; for it is the only religion based on faith alone; in reality Christianity is a pagan based, Jewish like cult.



The universe does not appear designed at all. You have been lied to. And you look for vague ideas that support what you want to hear. Real people, intelligent people, accept facts, like evolution. We also look for things that contradict us: that is what science is. We come up with an idea, and try to prove it false. When we can not do so the idea (hypothesis) become a theory (but only with REAL evidence). And with enough FACTS about our theory it becomes a law.



Gravity is "just a theory" too like you Christians ignorantly say, but I don't see anyone today jumping off bridges to disprove gravity. Though it would be a great service.

Answer 2

Where is your evidence

1) a "designer" exist (all you are doing is assuming it exists)

2) things were in fact "designed" (all YOU have done is assume it)

3) HOW things were designed (YOU have no idea)



Not interested in the rest of the question cos its just an argument based on ignorance (with stupidity thrown in)



"No! It proves that they had the same coder, or designer!"



How on earth does what you say PROVE a designer?



All you have said is that YOU have no idea how things evolved- THAT dont "PROVE" a damned thing



Do you have an evidence for 1), 2) and 3) above? _NOT ONE BIT



And you can NEVER EVER PROVE something by disproving something else UNLESS you can PROVE there are only 2 options



YOU aint disproved common ancestor AND you aint proved there are only 2 possible answers, AND you have NOT provided any evidence for 1) 2) and 3)



"intelligent designer" fails every possible criteria required to be a theory



THATS why its ignored by science

Answer 3

“You see, the religious people — most of them — really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.”

― Carl Sagan

Answer 4

Why do atheists claim that genetic similarities prove a common ancestor rather than a common designer?



- Because if there is a designer, he would fail ANY design class on this planet.



! It proves that they had the same coder, or designer! How does this possibility elude the foolish atheists?



- Are your original programs organic, and self replicating?

Answer 5

There are a couple of things wrong with your analogy.

One, biological systems and man made technological systems aren't the same thing.

Two, I could easily say that programming codes have a common ancestor, language, and that the programmer is simply using selectively using the same material to produce a different result. The programmer in that analogy isn't a deity or an intelligent designer, they're environmental factors modifying that material to better suit the task at hand or selective breeding to accomplish a task.

Answer 6

Actually, if you look at fetal development in, say, mammals like humans, you see a lot of features that go away or are minimized later on, such as the tail. This corresponds to the analogy of old code within a newer program.



As for common designer, I guess it is possible that one guiding intelligence artificially created these countless specie of life and intentionally created similarities and consciously designed weaknesses (e.g. human kneecaps are structurally unsound), but that seems much harder to believe than natural selection, which makes sense and does not require the presence of a galactic super-being, an explanation which predates science and whose influence has been soundly disproven in matters of geology, astronomy, anthropology etc etc etc

Answer 7

Biological life evolves it's been witnessed in several different species. No God came to program new code, it happened naturally.

There's so much evidence supporting evolution and zero supporting creation. I'm sure that a seemingly intelligent person like yourself can understand the foolishness of believing unproven claims in the face of contradicting evidence.

Answer 8

Because computer programming and DNA are dissimilar.



Nothing about DNA suggests a creator. Almost everything about computer code does suggest a creator.



I'm not an atheist, but the example given does not hold up to scrutiny.

Answer 9

You know why--the overwhelming evidence says so. Despite your dumb analogy. Otherwise, similar DNA doesn't show relatedness and you shouldn't have any more similar DNA to your parents than random humans. Do you not believe DNA is the molecule of inherence? Do you not believe in paternity testing or DNA testing? You can't have both.

Answer 10

Bad analogy, because that's NOT how it works at all. It's not reused parts. It's not a mixing and matching of libraries.



To use your analogy, if there was a creator, it wouldn't be one using #includes, it would be one rewriting the entire thing out and then typoing something and getting unexpected behavior and then selling it as a different program. There are no major leaps in the code, just slight modifications. And it's like no one ever decided to create another programming language; they just keep using the same one!



Besides, things like vestigial organs and the laryngeal nerve on the giraffe pretty much show that there was no creator; that evolution is how we exist.



On a side note, I don't know why people try to sell this "intelligent designer" nonsense. It would be far more believable to go with "incompetent designer"...

Answer 11

So now all you have to do is show any sign that any genome has been assembled by anything other than natural processes.



You know what proof is don't you? That thing that's not an analogy.

Answer 12

Because physical similarities can exist WITHOUT genetic similarities. Which means there is no reason for your "designer" to create strong genetic similarities in creatures that have similar traits.



Google convergent evolution to find out more.

Answer 13

'Atheists' don't claim that.



Scientists (including many who don't view belief in 'god(s)' as mutually exclusive from accepting the modern scientific theory of evolution as fact) are almost completely unanimous in their interpretation of evidence from fields like genetics, biology, zoology, paleontology, botany, and geology (among others) that it indicates common descent and evolution through natural selection.



Thanks for playing!

Answer 14

You're not even trying. Ditch the proper spelling and punctuation, and cut every other word so your sentences won't make sense. Otherwise, no one is going to take you seriously. Do better. I mean, do worse. You know what I mean.

Answer 15

Because you don't understand and you are comparing something completely irrelevant.



Not all atheists claim this and it wasn't atheists who originally claimed anything, it was scientists.

Answer 16

Why do you feel the need to believe that you have been created by a creature with magical powers?

Answer 17

the evolution assumption is all life originated from a single source and similarities is the proof they originated from a single source

Answer 18

Because archaeological evidence is different from computer programming.

Answer 19

There and many views heald by athiests and agnostics. You cannot generalize.

Answer 20

Because nature is the only designer!!!

Answer 21

Dude you're autistic.

Answer 22

Because there is evidence for one, and none for the other.