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
1. If those genesharing events occurred, are they still occuring or wasn't it a long time ago, near the beginning? If so, would that mean that life had a few ancestors, those ancestors mixed themselves up, and from there on out the rest unfolded from the results of that mixing? Wouldn't that still fit in with the phrase "one or a few common ancestors"? 2. I note that the saltation theory recently entertained here will appear closer to creationism, while the insistence upon evolution from one or a few ancestors is, of course, more palatable. So that's one point and one demerit. 3. What, really, are we talking about if we do not have common descent? I don't know much about what creationists think of special creation - I had rather always assumed that they allowed God to use the prior animals as his raw material to make up new ones. But if you take a genome and rearrange its chromosomes in one generation in such a way as to go from a reptile to a bird, in what way is that different from special creation, and in what way is it different from Darwinian common descent? It seems to me the answer is that it is very similar to special creation, with the difference that it leaves the realm of fantasy and magic, and instead gives us an unfolding of life that is consistent with letting nature run its course, having given it sufficient laws by which to do so. It keeps everything organically connected, which again, seems consistent with what we observe. It also seems to me the answer is that it is not much different than Darwinian common descent, except that the steps are deliberate and take place in large chunks, but the end result is the same - new species from the old. If we deny common descent then we must have animals created in the air, or in a lab, or by a magic wand, all of which are problematic to me, and seem like a lot of trouble and length to bother with millions of independent miracles when it could be done internally and naturally. And it would be downright unnecessary for the creationist to insist that he was not descended from an ape genome, because all the genomes consist of the same four letters. If these letters were rearranged in saltation events, then it is irrelevant what creature's genome was used to reshuffle. Even though ID, strictly speaking, is a design inference and need not name the designer or take a stand on common descent, I think the hypothesies of Davison about possible mechanisms that are real and down-to-earth but require intelligence are just the sort of new concepts needed. Random mutation has gotten sooooo stale.avocationist
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, Thank you for this bit of sanity and clarity.Charlie
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
Let's just back down the tree of life a few branches. What is the consensus on a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees? The fossil record for chimps is sparse because they inhabit jungle forests which provide little fossilation because of the acidity. However, the savanahs where early hominids thrived were more arid and preserved bones reasonably well. Perhaps a study in geological stratigraphy would identify locations for paleontological research.charles1859
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply