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, Indefinite extension granted! Anybody else willing to tackle that question?anteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Anteater, "I could not agree more. It is virtually impossible for life to come from non-life (’abiogenesis’). So, where did the first life come from?" Gee, Im full of... answers, but not this one. Could you give me a week? :) As Joe G says over at Telic Thoughts, a living cell is the ultimate IC system.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
avocationist wrote: "In light of my above post #3, what I’d like is to hear from anyone who does not accept common descent. I want to know what our options are." I accept the evidence for "common descent" below the species level (micro-level). I oppose suggestions that "uncommon descent" is ruled out above the species level (macro-level). Here are four reasons I have (I have more): - "Common descent" from one species to another has never been observed. No one is suggesting that it has been observed. Therefore "common descent" has not been proven. (Unlike gravity, for example.) Being the so-called "best" explanation is not proof. - The hypothesis of common descent from one species to another is an extrapolation of observations at the micro level. Extrapolation can be problematic: for example, "The earth I see is flat, therefore the earth I don't see is flat," is now known to have been a huge historical error. Are we repeating that error? I don't know! - Every genome of every species is unique; The DNA transcription mechanism seems to allow a lot of variation within the genome but appears to rigorously resist changes to the genome. - Observations of random mutations in the present day indicate that mutations occur infrequently. Inheritence less frequently. Survival advantage even less frequently. Are we seeing 1 random beneficial inherited mutation per second on earth? 1 per day? 1 per year? The calculations have not been done of the number of inheritable beneficial mutations that are required to account for hundreds of millions of mutations for hundreds of million of species. Is 4 billion years is enough time for the rate of mutation we see in the present day to account for the species we see in the present day by common descent? We don't know! Yes, of course, if the mutations were occuring geometrically, but we don't see a geometric rate happening either. A fly in the amber from 100 million years ago looks exactly like a fly in the amber today. Please notice what I am saying: I am not saying "common descent" didn't happen and "uncommon descent" did happen. I am saying NEITHER has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and I am entitled to have my opinion without browbeating ridicule. An ID stands strong as a theory either way. People on this forum have made statements suggesting I am their "enemy" as Dr. Davison did or that my ideas about uncommon descent are "laughable" as my good and respected friend DaveScot did. When they do, forgive me, I get a bit testy. I love you all.Red Reader
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Hey Anteater, As per Boesman's remark, just remember that the discussion here about CD is not about faith but about whether the evidence points to common descent. According to Scott/Davison it does. I myself do not hold enough facts in my head (my brain is pretty much a seive) to state a strong opinion on that, I rather come at it from the points of view I already mentioned, that it makes the most sense. And really, I can't emphasize enough that the common descent which includes sudden appearance of markedly modified life forms is not the gradualist one. Artist, Punctuated equilibrium came from Gould, one of the several paleontologists or other evolutinists that publicly talked about the holes in Darwinian theory without being able to discard it. He fully believed in an atheistic, unplanned and unguided universe. But he tried to find a way to account for sudden appearance and lack of transitional species. Yeah, you got it right. ID is compatible with various forms of evolution, but not with an unguided process with random mutations as the sole creative force (yeah, yeah, I know natural selection makes it unrandom but it acts after the fact). Since ID, strictly speaking, is a design inference, i.e., it posits the need for an intelligence to account for at least some of the systems we see in nature, it is not a full-fledged theory of life. I guess we are working on it now! Lots of ID people are Christian so sure, you can have your Jesus and your ID, too. I do not ascribe to any religion. For me, God is everything, is the cause of everything and designed everything, but I don't believe in miracles. I have no problem with the miracles of the Bible, except perhaps the virgin birth which I think is silly, but I just don't think anything miraculous ever occurs. Rather, I think 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. I hope that doesn't take too much of the magic out, but really, if eternity, infinity, immortality and this universe aren't enough for you, well I just can't help you. : ) My advice, don't worry about the chimps. You're not a chimp. I promise. How come it's alright to be made from dust, but not from a chimp? Anyway, it is the SAME thing! If "dust thou art and to dust thou wilt return" then it means the body turns to dust. And this is true. Our bodies are made from food, which is plants or the animals which eat them, and at death our bodies go back to the soil. But then, plants all come from the sun, so we are all really made of light. Ain't that cool? And isn't God "the Father of Lights"? (James) See how it all ties up? So let's cut God some slack and let him rearrange the chimp genome if its expedient to do so. It's just a bunch of instructions made of a 4-letter alphabet.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
"That life comes from life" I could not agree more. It is virtually impossible for life to come from non-life ('abiogenesis'). So, where did the first life come from?anteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Anteater, "Common descent is all about fitting the data to the model of naturalism. Once you have reason to discard the model, you don’t need to hold on its constraints anymore." But wait. Let's see the difference between 'naturalism' and natural. Naturalism is the metaphysical philosophy driving current science which says that matter is all there is, and even if it might not be, you should be ashamed for actually taking that possibility seriously in any way, but especially in science. There are other reasons for common descent. The unity and coherence of nature. The unity of God and the universe. That life comes from life. Here is an interesting observation. Both the atheists and the so-called religious people ascribe to the possibility that there is some great divide between nature and God. That God would act 'supernaturally' leaving no clues or trail for us to follow. That God would set up nature with great care and forethought, yet need to cheat against it to bring about his ends. The myth causing the confusion is that of a remote and separate God. Everything comes from God and so God includes the sum total of all that exists. There is no possibility for one particle in this universe to be separate from God. Get used to it. Reality is intense. The only escape is unawareness.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Hello Boesman, I agree that P(common descent | no design) is rather high. But P(no design) is rather low. P(common descent | design) is also low in my opinion. => P (common descent) is rather lowanteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Ok. I see we are talking about real science here. I am not a real scientist (but I play one when no one is home :) so I don't have a lot to offer but I do have a few questions: I remember someone mentioning "Punctual Equilibrium" or something like it. Is that like a guiding force to 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? Do we share a common ancestor with chimps? Does this theory still allow for God creating humans, leading to the fall and thus Jesus' sacrifice on the cross? I know that you are not about religion and I don't want a religious answer exactly, but you folks seem like you are at least honest about your science and I am trying to reconcile my beliefs with what evidence seems to suggest. Are there some specific articles that I can read that might help a person with no science background to understand what this controversy is really about? And finally, what is "After the bar closes"? I appologize for taking up space that you use to actually discuss these things that I don't understand. I went to the discovery institute site and I couldn't find anything in plain english about what the study of intelligent design really is. I couldn't understand all the science stuff. Thank you again for offering to help. My Granddaughter has been asking me a lot of questions like these lately and I don't really have any good answers.Artist in training
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
"Common descent is all about fitting the data to the model of naturalism." Welcome to Creationist Conspiracy Theory 101. "Once you have reason to discard the model, you don’t need to hold on its constraints anymore." In other words, you want to introduce the supernatural into science. This type of advocating isn't doing the movement any good.Boesman
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
JohnnyB, "Here’s an idea — perhaps leaving special creation as an open question." [If there is an edit feature on this blog, I haven't found it. Hence the quotes.] I do leave special creation as an open question. Where I'm going with this is a synthesis, a combining, of ideas on special creation with some form of evolution which unfolds naturally. I think the idea of frontloading and/or the discovery of laws governing the emergence of new life forms nicely combines them - definitely designed, perhaps in a quite refined way, and yet nonmagical. Although Davison says the external environment had nothing to do with it, I see no reason why environmental conditions could not have sometimes provided the trigger for chromosomal rearrangement events. But from my own point of view, this discussion is a bit off the mark. There is no other option than special creation, because this entire universe is a manfestation of God and there are no other possibilities. So it isn't a question of whether this universe was designed, but simply how it was/is done. I do not believe that God at any time goes against the laws of nature. The very idea is absurd. That is what I mean by magic. Not that special creation goes against the laws of nature. But I don't see God getting much satisfaction from playing wizard, and I do see satisfaction in leaving an unfolding universe full of possibilities for discovery, with clues everywhere. "But what is the harm in leaving it an open question?" The way I approach it is to have a deep and profound meditation upon the question: What is the core attribute of God? I say it is existence/life. Therefore I handle questions about the origin of life and how it works with great thought and care. "What physical evidence is there that the cambrian creatures had ancestors who were unlike themselves? For that matter, what physical evidence is there that turtles or bats had ancestors who were unlike themselves?" Good question. It would be mostly logical I think. We observe how life works, and we try to imagine God manufacturing absurdly delicate life forms, millions upon millions of times, each time having to keep them alive in his intensive care unit, and releasing them without parents even though many of them cannot live without parental assistance, and even though he would need to make a bunch of them so a few would make it to adulthood, when he could do it so much more locially by using nature, which to all appearances God loves the workings of very much and enjoys working through it. One of the old church fathers said, "Nature is what God does." I see no reason why God would be in some kind of a hurry, and everything we see indicates the setting up of a highly interactive bunch of systems that are self sustaining. (Now, I do not really mean that, God is the sustainer of all things, all the time, always has been, always will be.) "If there was an intelligent agency that acted at the origin of life, why must one assume that this agent stopped and never did so again?" See above. I don't ascribe to a remote and separate God. God is all things, fills all things and is the life in all things. Even if God frontloaded and programmed every detail at the big bang. Jacktone, "So, how about if we have a wunderkind extra-terrestrial engineer type with a penchant for creativity." Well, if you're serious about the extraterrestrial, and I see no reason why this didn't happen, but where did the ET come from? Do you really mean God? Now, this extraterrestrial, why did he go to the immense trouble to build each kind from scratch when they could simply rearrange chromosomes in an existing life form, and if they did do so from scratch, how did they keep it alive during the process of assembly? Have you read some ID stuff about the difficulties in origin of life research? Do you have any idea how immensely problematic it is to make a living cell? Is this not a key reason that life comes from life? Again, if God is the true source of life, then life is fundamentally different from not-life and one of those properties appears to be continuity. Back before there were matches, people took great care to keep their fires going, because making a fire from scratch is hard. Boesman, "Special creation events, while still a possibility, are just not supported by any evidence. Same goes for saltation." I disagree. The evidence points to the need for something very special to start life in the first place, and the evidence also points to saltation, if only because it points so determinedly away from gradualism. So either we have saltation or we have the God-of-the-lab. Are there other possibilities? And I want to know where his lab is. Does he bring stuff in a spaceship? Cryogenics might work. Does he set it up on the ground and carry stuff out? Then he would need to move the lab to different continents, I think. So he might have had one of those big, military helicopters to fly his mobile lab around. But I still can't figure out how God could do those things when God is infinite and doesn't have a body. If he has a body, he is quite limited, indeed. It is obvious from recent science that our world up here where we live is built upon structures, both biological and atomic, that are of such immensely small size and so large in number (billions of atoms in one cell) that a creative force would have to have access to those extremely small realms. That's where the nuts and bolts are. Therefore I think the creative power must have acted from within and not from without, and the power of mind would be the main tool.avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Common descent is all about fitting the data to the model of naturalism. Once you have reason to discard the model, you don't need to hold on its constraints anymore.anteater
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Well put, johnnyb (and thanks again for the debate CD!!!). Add chimps to your list of animals which appear without antecedants. As I've said before, the fossil record is very harmonious with either a Special Creation position or the Saltation/Quantum Level Programming view posited by Prof. Davison and others. What the record does NOT demonstrate is Darwinian gradualism.Bombadill
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
I just don't see any sensible alternatives to accepting common descent as part of ID. Common design, while superficialy attractive, just doesn't survive proper scientific scrutiny. Special creation events, while still a possibility, are just not supported by any evidence. Same goes for saltation. What else is there? I'm not telling anyone what to believe -only what is scientifically plausible.Boesman
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
yes, johnnyb, i agree. this is a good point - "What physical evidence is there that the cambrian creatures had ancestors who were unlike themselves? For that matter, what physical evidence is there that turtles or bats had ancestors who were unlike themselves?" So, how about if we have a wunderkind extra-terrestrial engineer type with a penchant for creativity. Now, suppose he thinks it would be cool to build a bunch of living things. So, his strategy is to first make a bunch of fundamental building blocks, kind of like the erector set I had as a kid, only these are at the molecular level. Now, he has this big old box of building blocks and clears off a nice place to start his first project which is a machine that has mobility, a self-repair mechanism, and the ability to reproduce itself. He gets the thing all set up and turns it on, watches it run for awhile, generating copies of itself, claps his hands together and says “Whee, that was fun. I think I’ll do it again, but this time I’m gonna make it orange with green spots and can fly.” So he takes his box of blocks and finds a new spot and sets to work. (repeat) So now we come along a gazillion years after the fact and say, “Hmmm, these things all have the same fundamental parts therefore the must all have started as a universal common ancestor.” I don't believe there is enough evidence to warrant this conclusion, especially as the only acceptable one.jacktone
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Common descent can be defined as evolution. Welcome to the club, what took you guys so long?blader
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
"Here’s a question: if we are in the ID camp and do not need to subscribe to special creation, then what is left for us if we doubt both common descent and special creation?" Here's an idea -- perhaps leaving special creation as an open question. Surely many have made their minds up on it one way or another (I am definitely for it). But what is the harm in leaving it an open question? What physical evidence is there that the cambrian creatures had ancestors who were unlike themselves? For that matter, what physical evidence is there that turtles or bats had ancestors who were unlike themselves? If there is no evidence for them having descended from a common ancestor as something else, why suppose it? If there was an intelligent agency that acted at the origin of life, why must one assume that this agent stopped and never did so again? If scientists create life in the lab, we will certainly at that point have another root to the phyletic tree. And if they made multiple creatures, then there would be many roots to the phyletic tree. So why is it that we, as small intelligent agents, are not restricted to the number of phyletic roots we can create, but yet the intelligent agent which created life is so restricted?johnnyb
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Being in the ID camp means accepting the possibility of design in biology and scientifically identifying such cases. I think it means studying and discussing evidence to arrive at conclusions and not necessarily accepting the constraints of a dogma imposed by the entrenched hierarchy, an established religion, or others in the ID camp.Charlie
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
In light of my above post #3, what I'd like is to hear from anyone who does not accept common descent. I want to know what our options are. It seems the early gene sharing is going down smoothly. No one is choking. If you asked me last week whether I believed common descent, I might have said no. That is because I was thinking of it in the Darawinist sense. According to Darawin, saltation is unacceptable. But now I am seeing how the point that life comes from life is very important, and it is one of the main differnces in the thinking of Darwinists versus those on the other side. We must be extremely reluctant to abandon it as we seek explanations. There is a fundamental difference in the view of life between the materialist and the nonmaterialist. For the materialist, life isn't really existent, but is a just what happens when enough of the right chemicals get together, not too different than your car when you turn your key in the ignition. And this is what the whole debate is really about: Are we alive? For if there is no God, then we are not truly alive. So what I am clumsily getting at here is that we need some clear thinking on what common descent means or does not mean, and if we talk of special creation or some sort of ID scenario which does not include common descent, then we need a brass tacks idea of what we're talking about. Here's a question: if we are in the ID camp and do not need to subscribe to special creation, then what is left for us if we doubt both common descent and special creation? Or what do we mean by special creation - is it a matter of speed?avocationist
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
I agree with DaveScot on this important point: we have never seen new organisms come into being except for some kind of birth from an existing being. Therefore, irrespective of whether suspects this process has been intelligently guided or not, common descent seems to be the default position. (Aside: all the talk about lateral gene transfer and Woesian thoughts about a pool of original common ancestors, the real issue is about common descent at higher levels, from those who doubt speciation entirely to those who think the various "kinds", or phyla, or whatever are not related by common descent. However, here in Kansas virtually all the various players supporting ID *deny* common descent. This is an issue that bears discussing, I think, and I thank DaveScot for so clearly bringing it up.Jack Krebs
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
"Determining the mechanism that drives Evolution is interesting. What makes organisms change from one generation to another? Has anything been observed that could account for these changes, from one generation to another?" Apart from RMNS, I don't know of anything that's been actually observed. One alternative possibility I've seen mentioned is Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis, which claims that changes to one's genome are made deliberately by organisms in response to adverse conditions (self-applied ID). Haven't seen a detailed description of the mechanism by which this would occur. I recall that it turned out to be fairly hard to devise an experiment to test this idea that would satisfy all parties.Corkscrew
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Determining the mechanism that drives Evolution is interesting. What makes organisms change from one generation to another? Has anything been observed that could account for these changes, from one generation to another?Renier
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
I agree. Let's then at least put a question mark after the title of this forum. Just a thought so don't go ballistic.John Davison
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Artist ID and common descent are imminently compatible. They must be since both are true. :-)DaveScot
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
To the Peanut Gallery at "After The Bar Closes" I know you clowns are reading this and just wanted to let you know that I deleted my own article at no one's urging, I'm still moderating the joint like before, and we're all still friends here united against bozos clinging to the discredited Darwinian dogma of natural selection. So there.DaveScot
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record still does not refute common descent. For various other fossils the common ancestor is very obvious. There is no evidence so far that could even nearly refute common descent. Even before genetics gave us huge amounts of evidence, the fossils appear clear about the facts. Was there one single common ancestor, or did all life as we know it evolve from three? Does it matter? It still does not cast any doubt on common descent. Determining the mechanism that drives Evolution is interesting. What makes organisms change from one generation to another? Has anything been observed that could account for these changes, from one generation to another?Renier
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent, just as certain as there is absolutely no evidence to support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, Darwinian evolution. We still do not know how many times, where, when or especially how life was created and subsequently evolved. How can anyone, armed with all that wonderful information, refute anything? We have yet to scratch the surface of the secrets of ontogeny and phylogeny. Refutation is for philosophers and logicians. Demonstration is for scientists.John Davison
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
Alrighty then, lets do some informed discussing. I think you hit all the nails on the head, Avocationist. Two major bits of evidence seem incontrovertable: 1) Every living thing ever observed, where its origin can be determined, descended from another living thing. This has been observed I'm sure billions of times by now by billions of people. Life comes from life. I know of no exception to that rule. In science, when we find phenomenon that are widely observed countless times with never an exception, it's labeled not a hypothesis or theory, but a law of nature. Life comes from life is a law of nature. It is as well tested as gravity. While we cannot turn back time and witness things millions and billions of years ago, it takes some kind of extraordinary evidence to reasonably purport a law of nature operating differently in the past. This applies to the law of gravity, which predicts that things fall down instead of up, and to the law of life, which predicts that every living thing has a parent. 2) The genetic code. It was pointed out to me that Dr. Stephen Meyer had questioned whether the universal genetic code, which has been known for some time to be not quite unviversal, suggests multiple instances of the origination of life. Over a year I looked at this very thing myself. Since there's no empirical evidence at all contrary to the law of nature that life comes from life, one has to look for indirect evidence of exceptions. The obvious place to start is the universal genetic code. So I went to the code depository http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=t%23SG12 and checked out the deviations from the standard code. Glaringly obvious is that the differences are very small - one base here, another there. While this begs the difficult question of how these differences arose in a common descent scenario, what it does not do is cast any reasonable doubt on common descent. Why? Because the points of similarity overwhelm the points of difference. If one wants to say there were independent origins due to the small differences one also needs to explain the remaining similarity. Carl Woese's theory http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/13/8742 proposes that instead of one universal common ancestor there were three - bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes - which came to have a high degree of simililarity today through horizontal gene transfer. Three common ancestors billions of years ago isn't much dissent from descent from one ancestor. Moreover, eukaryotes include every member of the plant and animal kingdoms which, accoreding to Woese, would still have a single common ancestor. For the purposes of this discussion, a single common ancestor for all plants, all animals, all fungi, and all protists is essentially still common descent. None of us are really concerned about bacteria having an ancestor different from fig trees and humans are we? Fig trees and humans still have the same common ancestor in Woese's theory. Russel Doolittle is saying basically the same thing as Woese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Evolutionary_theory At the end of the day we still the law of nature that life comes from life, an overwhelming number of points of similarity in the genetic code, and the best scientific objections to a single common ancestor (Woese and Doolittle) still saying that all plants, animals, fungi, and protists share a single common ancestor. What am I missing here? Where is the scientific evidence to refute common descent?DaveScot
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
THANK YOU!!!!Daniel512
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
I am mostly just a "lurker" but I had to register after the last post was removed. I believe. I am not sure what it was that Dave Scott was talking about there. Are ID and the idea of Common Descent compatible? I was under the impression that they weren't. Forgive my ignorance, most of what you say goes way over my head. I am mostly just a reader but I am confused. Please don't waste time answering me if it's too difficult to explain.Artist in training
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Since the other thread was deleted, I thought I would repost these useful links to detailed arguments on both sides of the common descent debate: Doug Theobald's "29 Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc Ashby Camp's critique of Theobald's article: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Theobald's response to Camp's critique: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html Camp replies to Theobald's response to Camp's critique of Theobald's article: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.aspwatchmaker
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply