Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Common Descent at Uncommon Descent

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin’s single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion.

To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community’s diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single “Tree of” and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.

In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor.

Comments
avocationist "Of course it is. I went back to my post and can’t figure out the link in my thoughts. I’m mentally handicapped. But I sure wasn’t arguing against ID." No, I wasn't disagreeing. I was confirming what you said. Sorry if it came across as confrontational. No, I just meant YES, such evidence demands the design inference.Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
John Davison wrote: "To deny common descent is to deny evolution. That is unthinkable, unforgivable unacceptable and inconceivable in no particular order." Such assertions qualify as drum beating but not debate. With all due respect Dr. Davison. I respect you as an educator and a scholar, but I simply disagree. I deny common descent. I deny evolution. a) it is quite thinkable; I think it and I do not go mad. b) forgiveness isn't needed. c) it is quite acceptable to wide swathes of humanity, many of whom are educators and scholars. d) it is as easy to conceive uncommon descent as it is to conceive of Da Vinci painting the Last Supper. I am rational and of sound mind and body. I am not a Neanderthal. I have a Master's Degree in Business. I am capable of evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions. Neither does my mother wear army boots. I LOVE the facts you bring to the debate, facts relating actual observations.Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Dazza, The only way to stop the infinite regress is to appeal to a metaphysical cause. The origin of the physical world cannot be explained by physical laws. That's tautological. Evolutionists try to push this metaphysical cause as far back as possible and then forget about it. Creationists push this metaphysical cause forward to explain the origin of life. They are both on the same metaphysical footing.anteater
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
I thought that evolution theory didn't deal with origin of life? Am I really wrong here? I understand darwin's theory to be about after life began. That is where I'm confused. If Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism for the origin of species and common descent, and you agree with common descent, is there evidence saying that natural selection is Not the reason for common descent or the making of new species? And how can someone possibly make the claim for anything other than intelligent design? I did find out what after the bar closes is. You were right, it's a bunch of people who simply throw insults around like badges of honor. It is linked to pandas thumb which I have seen you guys mention from time to time. Now that one is a real doosey. I don't know how to make links in these windows but if you know how to get there (www.pandasthumb.com), it's worth a read. It kind of makes you wonder how these sorts of people think they are "defending" science. There is an article called "Intelligent Design belittles God" where they are openly pushing for evangelical atheism toward the end of all the responses. One person makes a joke of it but others really get into it. I am going to register there and ask questions I think. I know they will call me names but really! Someone should tell their mothers what they are writing.Artist in training
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Red Reader, “Davison says there has not even been a new genus in what, 2 million?” - to me that is a gigantic flashing neon billboard blinking “Uncommon Descent”. Well, no, his point there is that evolution is winding down, is mostly done with. “For example, bacteria are capable of turning on mutations in the presence of stressors” - is primary evidence of ID: “the more complicated the system, the greater the design inference”: is moreover an example of a more specialized form of programming–”artificial intelligence programming” the probabilities of which suggest MORE design inference." Of course it is. I went back to my post and can't figure out the link in my thoughts. I'm mentally handicapped. But I sure wasn't arguing against ID. “Extrapolation” - it is extrapolation from the observed to the unobserved. WITHIN levels (genomes) we KNOW the mechanism. That we haven’t observed a mechanism for slow or sudden change FROM one genome INTO another, doesn’t prove there isn’t a mechanism. But if we haven’t discovered it, there is always the possibility that there isn’t one." Logically, yes, but I agree with Dave Scot's answer. But I think we probably will discover mechanisms or left-over clues to sudden change mechanisms. Then the Darwinists will claim it as part of their theory. Chalk up one more to the great scientific theory with strong predictive power. "But Dr. Davison’s PEH, if true, has even less chance of being observed even than NDE-RMNS; in fact it appears to require for viability the fact that it’s all done with." See above. I have an intuition that information is not lost in this universe. We'll find it.+++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ Anteater, "If the first life was designed, it is not unreasonable to think that the other life was designed, and not the product of naturalistic common descent. Rejecting common descent altogether is *no more metaphysical* than suggesting that the first life was designed. Remember that this concept of common descent was developed to fit into the naturalistic model of unguided, unintellgent evolution. As I said before, if the model crumbles, why be encumbered by its constraints?" But remember, the NDEs do have some data in their favor. It may be that common descent has lots of evidence, while the evidence for it occurring randomly is nonexistent. Just because they are strongly motivated to prove naturalism, does not mean every bit of data can be dismissed. What I observe leads me to think God would be far more likely to have set things up so that new life forms can be brought forth from existing ones, than to create each one. And you haven't really answered the posts I made about that yesterday. Bring it out of the realm of nondetail and think about what it would mean to specially create, over and over again, each form. Reality is all about the details. That's the bottom line. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Boesman, "So is God supernatural or not? Can his existence be tested and falsified? Remember that I didn’t mention God at all originally. You seem to think that science should include God just to make you feel better. This approach was tried for thousands of years. Success rate for God in science: 0% (zero). Supernatural explanations do not work in science and only hamper further discovery. This is exactly why ID had to distance itself from supernatural explanations in Dover." 1.God is not supernatural. The word has little meaning. It means magic or the unexplained. If God can be called supernatural, it is in the sense that S/He is the cause of nature. But there's nothing non-natural about that. It is the most perfectly natural fact. What I am trying to convey is that if nature is what God does, how can you separate that out? You'd be skinning him alive. 2. I think the existence of consciousness or somethink like that will be proved by science. I am an optimist. We don't know what science can or cannot prove. Don't predict the future of science. You can't see the vista. 3.I try to speak of God when its pertinent to the discussion. Which it so often is. As someone pointed out on another thread, this whole 150-year debate is really about materialism versus nonmaterialism. While I have high hopes for scientific proofs for God, in general people are looking in the wrong place. And it's very silly of them. 4.You are spouting rhetoric about the prior lack of success in science. Many of the greatest scientists have been very devout. Religion has its faults and people who lack faith cling to false ideas out of fear. This includes religious people and so sometimes they have obstructed rational thinking. If people would stop being silly, everything would progress better. Generally, the same behavior patterns can be found on both sides of a divide. 5. There is no such thing as a supernatural explanation. There are intuitive instincts, such as that life comes from God, (which is logical as well) but this in no way obstructs science. We just keep plugging away, studying nature. To anything that has ever happened, there is a pathway of detail. Just because God is at the root of it all, changes nothing. "The last thing ID needs is people dictating their faith as science." I'm not into faith and I certainly try not to dictate. I just think its funny when people who want to hide from God choose careers in science, because it is the study of God. I do believe it has undone many physicists and astronomers.avocationist
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
DaveWatt wrote: "The fact that chimps and humans *share* these retroviral insertions suggests they derived from a common ancestor." The problem with extrapolation is it comes equipped with blinders. a) "both have them" and "share them" are two different concepts. Automobiles and playground equipment do not "share" nuts and bolts. b) ...suggests "derived from a common ancestor". Why not "derived from a common designer"? "...suggests that humans and chimps are most closely related." Which are more closely related: John Deer tractors and John Deer pickups or John Deer Pickups and Ford Pickups? Answer: Neither. OK, this is bigoted: "It is of course possible that a Designer decided to stick these bits of DNA in our genomes to fool us." Since you are not privy to the Designer's plans you have no way of knowing why the Designer made any of the choices He/She/It made. You have made yourself the judge of the Designer, an absurd "suggestion".Red Reader
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
dazza The argument "who designed the designer" is stale and useless. The question can be made of life coming from non-life i.e. where did the non-life come from? Just as the question "where did matter come from" is not a question that evolution addresses where the designer came from is not a question that ID addresses.DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Jacktone Did the universe have to have a parent universe? Some questions are beyond the reach of current science and might remain that way. The *fact* remains that billions of people have observed billions of living things reproducing and not once has anyone observed a living thing coming into existence any other way. Until an exception is found it's a law of nature that life comes from life.DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
But Dave, at some point, there had to have been a parentless organism. There is simply no way around it.jacktone
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
avocationist I agree with your POV that the distinction between supernatural and natural is often somewhat spurious---if we can observe something, if it can affect us, then it is in nature. I think people often describe as supernatural those events which appear to disagree with the laws of nature as we have previously understood them (really, it is quite interesting that nature is at all amenable to description by simple laws at all...). However, I'm unconvinced by your assertion that: "God and sometimes people have access to subquantum events (reality before it is jelled up here where we can see it) and can manipulate events. We humans are constantly bringing about things which nature, unaided, could never do." Do you have any justification for why this should be the case? can you define clearly what `access to subquantum events' really means? Sorry, I am a bit skeptical about people using physical terms loosely to get to conclusions they *want* to get to....physicist
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
avocationist: "And that is why God is the source of life. And why life comes from life." That doesn't really answer the question, though. Either God is alive and hence life comes from His life which means that His life must have come from somewhere (which again begs the question) or He is not alive and hence life has come from non-life. The idea of abiogenesis is that life can rise from non-life since life is basically an electrochemical construct. It would seem to me that ID's interpretation of the beginnings of life must rely on life coming from non-life (just as evolutionary theory does). With ID, however, we encounter a logical paradox, whereas evolutionary theory does not have such a philosophical stumbling block. ID must either have a designer that is not alive and granted life or is alive and either became alive spontaneously (i.e. not from life) or through some other agent (which begins the cycle again). Note that I am not arguing for or against current theories of abiogenesis - just that mainstream science's view is fraught with less paradoxical implications than the logical conclusion of the Design hypothesis.dazza
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
http://genomesize.com/DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
scordova I asked myself that very same question a year ago - how much information can be practically packed into a genome. The answer is at least enough to prescribe all living and extinct phyla. There are genomes in nature today up to 200 times the size of the human genome and it's an amoeba with the largest. Frogs, water lillies, and conifers are other examples with genomes dozens of times larger than human. And we've only sampled a small number (a few thousand) different species leaving millions of other species which may contain even larger genomes. And that's just extant organisms which only represent 1% of all that ever lived. A genome 200 times the size of a human's should be more than adequate to define 200 original ancestors of 200 different phyla, right? When I brought this up a year ago the objection was raised that nature can't preserve unexpressed genes long enough because random mutation eventually obliterates unexpressed genes. To this I said "Poppycock!". Error detection algorithms of sufficient reliability are used in computers to copy critical data. No algorithm a human engineer can design should be denied to nature. Nature anticipates and bests human engineers all the time. So there we are.DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
The main competitor of the front loading type scenarios (such as Mike Gene's FLE or John Davison's PEH) is special creation. Though it's personally hard for me to offer criticisms of my colleague's very carefully thought out ideas, I must offer an important consideration from Claude Shannon's work which would favor special creation. There are physical limits to information storage ( your disk can only hold so much). It may be that there is simply too much information to pack into a single specie or several species from which all others descend. Therefore evolution paralleling ontogeny might not be feasible. On the other hand, there is always the chance that molecules are able to store more information in ways we don't currently understand (like say a biological quantum computer), but well it's not been found. One thing is for sure, imho, Darwinian mechanism had little to do with creating large scale biological innovation. We IDists can mostly agree on that.scordova
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
avocationist, "“Remember: if it invokes the supernatural, then it’s not science.” Baloney. We need not think of God as supernatural. I hardly relate to that funny word. It sounds like magic. Which is childish. How can you limit science that way? If there is a God, then what should science do? Stop studying the universe? Ask only certain questions but not others? Allow certain answers but not others? Science studies nature. What if that old church father was right, “Nature is what God does”?" So is God supernatural or not? Can his existence be tested and falsified? Remember that I didn't mention God at all originally. You seem to think that science should include God just to make you feel better. This approach was tried for thousands of years. Success rate for God in science: 0% (zero). Supernatural explanations do not work in science and only hamper further discovery. This is exactly why ID had to distance itself from supernatural explanations in Dover. “Boesman, if there is a God, then the only way to hide is by lack of awareness. And there is nothing wrong with that, but studying nature would be the last career I’d recommend.” The last thing ID needs is people dictating their faith as science. You need to learn to separate the two before you can ever truly understand either.Boesman
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Asking what evidence is there that Cambrian animals had parents is like asking what evidence is there that the sun rose in the east back in the Cambrian. The salient question is what evidence is there that Cambrian animals DID NOT have parents or what evidence is there that sun did not rise in the east. In every case where we've observed a modern animal and can determine its origin it came from an animal very much like it. In every case where we've observed the sun rise it was in the east. When an observation has been repeated billions of times by billions of people without any deviation it is a law of nature. It's beyond hypothesis and beyond mere theory. The sun rises in the east. Animals have parents. While it *may* be true that animals don't always have parents and it *may* be true that the sun doesn't always rise in the east, it takes extraordinary evidence, not mere logical possibility, that the law of nature we know today was not a law of nature in the past.DaveScot
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
To deny common descent is to deny evolution. That is unthinkable, unforgivable unacceptable and inconceivable in no particular order.John Davison
February 2, 2006
February
02
Feb
2
02
2006
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
"Do have an answer to your own question?" The first life was designed; that's a valid (and entirely rational) inference from the info we have now. If the first life was designed, it is not unreasonable to think that the other life was designed, and not the product of naturalistic common descent. Rejecting common descent altogether is *no more metaphysical* than suggesting that the first life was designed. What we have to do is see where the data leads. Remember that this concept of common descent was developed to fit into the naturalistic model of unguided, unintellgent evolution. As I said before, if the model crumbles, why be encumbered by its constraints? Some evidence for common descent: 1) Fossil record -- too fuzzy to convince me. 2) Genomic data -- a little more down-to-earth. I need to study this more myself, but it seems like overreaching conclusions are being made from the data (due to the prior belief in common descent).anteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
On common descent http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/02/challenges_to_darwins_tree_of.html#moreCharlie
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
I've always assumed that the primary meaning of this blog's name is that for someone of Dr. Dembski's intellectual caliber to administer a blog is indeed an uncommon descent. (I wholeheartedly agree, and am not in the least surprised that he has delegated the admin responsibilities to others.) But, even so, he obviously wouldn't have given it the name if he thought that non-common descent in biology is theoretically incompatible with ID. Personally, I think that common descent is the best inference from the reported data, just as intelligent design is the best inference from CSI and IC. Also, what I would call a "discrete developmental" model seems consistent with the jumps in the fossil record. To me, special creation seems to be a presumption that was based on ignorance. Given the paleontological and genomic data (which I have not explored first-hand), special creation implies a purposeful and physically unnecessary illusory aspect of creation: the appearance that life is the result of an evolutionary or developmental process. A fair explanation for this would be the creator's wish to allow humans the freedom to disbelieve in him, by convincing one's self that Darwinian evolution is feasible. Special creation would also violate "DaveScot's law of nature" that every individual has (a) biological parent(s); The question is whether a similar "law of nature" holds for species. With developmental, or evolutionary, models of ID, the illusory aspect is eliminated, and the law of biological parentage is not violated. Dr. William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design (1999), p. 171: "Given an instance of CSI, [there are] two possibilities: either ther CSI was always present or it was inserted. Intelligent design theorists differ about which of these two possibilities obtains for the universe taken as a whole. On the one hand are those like Michael Denton and, to a lesser extent, Michael Behe, who see all the CSI of the universe present at the start. On the other hand are those like Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, and myself who see CSI emerging in discrete steps, with no evident informational precursors, and thus through discrete insertions over time. This debate is not new -- German teleomechanists and British natural theologians engaged in much the same debate, with the Germans arguing that teleology was intrinsic to the world, the British arguing that it was extrinsic. However this debate gets resolved, CSI is an empirically detectable entity that transcends [undirected] natural causes." Ecclesiastes: "What was, will be again, what has been done, will be done again, and there is nothing new under the sun."j
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Oops, part of Artist's replies got out of order and are at the bottom.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Hi Artist, "I guess I don’t really need the bible to be literal except that without adam and eve and original sin, why would jesus die on the cross? Never mind, that comment has no place here." I have so much to say on this topic that I am planning to write a book and to also have a website to support discussion. Let me just say that whether Adam and Eve were literal or not doesn't matter. We humans are in trouble. Really, if you want to talk about it, I'm willing but not here. Jesus did a lot more than die on the cross. Jesus was the living example of how to live in the kingdom of heaven and he taught by example. He said to forgive and love your enemies and he forgave and prayed for those nailing his hands. Everyone focuses on some legalistic, pharasaic idea that God required payment and they miss this amazing lesson, which alone gives meaning to the cross. Jesus died to show us how to be the living truth, and to show us that love is the reconciliation. Red Reader, I have to apologize. I said ID folks aren't interested in random mutation, but I forgot that actually many of them do consider it important. Boesman, "Remember: if it invokes the supernatural, then it’s not science." Baloney. We need not think of God as supernatural. I hardly relate to that funny word. It sounds like magic. Which is childish. How can you limit science that way? If there is a God, then what should science do? Stop studying the universe? Ask only certain questions but not others? Allow certain answers but not others? Science studies nature. What if that old church father was right, "Nature is what God does"? Boesman, if there is a God, then the only way to hide is by lack of awareness. And there is nothing wrong with that, but studying nature would be the last career I'd recommend. If the Holy Spirit is a real part of your life, then you can hardly do better. Hold onto that. After the Bar Closes is a forum, I think, full of Darwinist fundamentalists. I haven't been there but you could type it into your browser if you're feeling masochistic.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Artist In Training: "I remember someone mentioning “Punctual Equilibrium” or something like it. Is that like a guiding force to common descent?" No. Punctuated Equilibrium is the observation from the fossil record that speciation occurs quite quickly, with long periods of stasis in between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium It is not relevant to a discussion of common descent. "If common descent is compatible with ID but evolution through natural selection (did I get that right?) is not, then is there an alternative theory for how descent happened?" Common descent is compatible with modern evolutionary theory. Note that selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. Random genetic drift is another important mechanism. "Do we share a common ancestor with chimps?" The overwhelming weight of evidence says yes. You have no doubt heard of the great similarity between human and chimp DNA. What is, for me, the most compelling evidence of all is the recent discovery that humans and chimps share many endogenous retroviral insertions in their DNA. Put simply, this means that retroviruses often insert into an animal's DNA, and frequently become inactive. The retroviral DNA stays in the genome and is inherited. If two species share this retroviral DNA, btu a third does not, this implies that the two species sharing the DNA are more closely related to each other than to the third species. Here's an analogy. Let's say generations of monks were copying out the Bible, and passing copies on to younger monks. Let's say you travelled round Europe and found a small area in Scotland where all the bibles began with the words "In the beginning Dog created the heaven and the earth". It is much more likely that the mistake in all the Bibles in that region was inherited from a careless copyist in the area, rather than each monk making the same mistake independently. The fact that chimps and humans share these retroviral insertions suggests they derived from a common ancestor. The fact that they have more of these retroviral insertions in common with each other than, say, between humans and gorillas, or humans and marmosets, or humans and donkeys, suggests that humans and chimps are most closely related. It is of course possible that a Designer decided to stick these bits of DNA in our genomes to fool us. But once you start inviting such possibilities, pretty much anything is possible. -DaveWattDaveWatt
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
avocationist writes: "Davison says there has not even been a new genus in what, 2 million?" - to me that is a gigantic flashing neon billboard blinking "Uncommon Descent". "For example, bacteria are capable of turning on mutations in the presence of stressors" - is primary evidence of ID: "the more complicated the system, the greater the design inference": is moreover an example of a more specialized form of programming--"artificial intelligence programming" the probabilities of which suggest MORE design inference. "Extrapolation" - it is extrapolation from the observed to the unobserved. WITHIN levels (genomes) we KNOW the mechanism. That we haven't observed a mechanism for slow or sudden change FROM one genome INTO another, doesn't prove there isn't a mechanism. But if we haven't discovered it, there is always the possibility that there isn't one. "The whole frontloading or intelligent interference idea so far as Davison proposes...." - I've said it's an interesting theory. Because of it, Dr. Davison is not afraid to express REAL observations that are useful to the whole debate: a) no new genus in 2 million years, b) species appear to be at the end of the line as far as programming goes. NDE kind of try to discount those observations. But Dr. Davison's PEH, if true, has even less chance of being observed even than NDE-RMNS; in fact it appears to require for viability the fact that it's all done with. Thanks avocationist.Red Reader
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
"It is virtually impossible for life to come from non-life (’abiogenesis’). So, where did the first life come from?" We don't know. We may not know in our lifetimes. Yet abiogenesis research continues on increasingly viable origin-of-life hypotheses. Do have an answer to your own question? Remember: if it invokes the supernatural, then it's not science.Boesman
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
"What is ID’s answer to this question? Even if there is an intelligent deisgner, wouldn’t the designer have to be alive to exhibit/use its intelligence, starting the question all over again?" The designer is God, or if the designer is an alien or angel or demigod then we can ignore them and get to the bottom of the line which is God. Obviously, existence itself contains a Great Mystery. How is it possible for anything to exist at all? If we say matter is ever-existing we are ascribing to it the property of self-existence. Obviously the overwhelming, stupendous fact of God is that God exists. I too, find it incomprehensible, yet here we are. And that is why God is the source of life. And why life comes from life.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Hello Red Reader, I'm sorry if others have misbehaved. I take full responsibility. Where are they, anyway? I'm defending their position for them! I'm definitely interested in all your ideas against common descent. 1. It has not been observed. True enough. Davison says there has not even been a new genus in what, 2 million? Anyway, the lab is turning up interesting things at a rapid pace. For example, bacteria are capable of turning on mutations in the presence of stressors, and turning them on at specific loci, and turning them off again. Ultimately, if the DNA is capable of recombining to the point of making a new species or genera, I think we will discover it. 2. Extrapoloation. Maybe. But is is an extrapolation "from the micro level" or is it an extrapolation from how life seems to work on all levels? 3. This may be the strongest argument. I myself predicted here a couple of months ago that as our knowledge increases in the near future we shall find out exactly why a species cannot mutate into another. And that could be the coffin nail for neoDarwinism. On the other hand, species themselves may be the end of the line as far as programming goes, and therefore cannot be expected to have the capacity to further evolve (other than micro changes). The whole frontloading or intelligent interference idea so far as Davison proposes (and I think others he knows about) has to do with early and simple life forms carrying more information in them, information which is supressed until such time as it is needed, and carrying primitive prototypes of more complex organs to be modified for later use in upcoming species, and that nonsexual reproduction has certain freedoms that sexual reproduction does not. But really, I'm not qualified to answer this. We need help. 4. Nobody in ID is interested in the efficacy of random mutations. Random mutatations went out of fashion. Sometime during the Nixon era.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Thank you avocationist, I guess I don't really need the bible to be literal except that without adam and eve and original sin, why would jesus die on the cross? Never mind, that comment has no place here. I looked up gould on amazon and I will read a book that he wrote. I "looked inside the book" and he seems like a good writer so I will give it a shot. I guess I was looking for something else. Ok, we decended from chimps or some common ancestor. I suppose my version of christianity is old-fashioned and I should allow new information to enhance my understanding of god rather than challenge it. If my church is preaching things that have been discredited somehow then I guess it is up to me to learn what the things are and to find ways to grow with new knowledge. Heaven knows that our understanding of the universe is incomplete. The holy spirit is a real part of my life and I don't want to change my understanding of it but, as my granddaughter would say, "You don't have to be right to be valuable". I still wonder what "After the bar closes" is. I think it is time for me to open my mind and try to do a little growing in my retirement. THank you for the honest discussion of what the evidence seems to point to. I do trust you guys because you seem to respect the spiritual side of our nature while still looking objectively at what can be learned through science.Artist in training
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Good point dazza, about "how to stop the infinite regress?" Evolutionists face this problem too. I'll give you my opinion in a while, after I hear some responses to #29.anteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Anteater/Avocationist: "It is virtually impossible for life to come from non-life (’abiogenesis’). So, where did the first life come from?” What is ID's answer to this question? Even if there is an intelligent deisgner, wouldn't the designer have to be alive to exhibit/use its intelligence, starting the question all over again?dazza
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply