Common Descent or Common Design – Is There a Difference?

_{February 5, 2006

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As long as I’m on the subject of overwhelming points of similarity vs. underwhelming points of difference, a few points of similarity between man and chimp in no particular order, off the top of my head:

ten fingernails on ten fingers
two opposable thumbs
two wrists
two elbows
hair
skin
two eyes
two ears
nose
mouth
teeth
throat
ribs
two lungs
skull
brain
neck
two shoulders
two nipples
four chamber heart
liver
two kidneys
stomach
esophagus
pancreas
bile duct
small intestine
large intestine
private parts
hips
knees
ankles
red blood cells
white blood cells
bone marrow

yada yada yada

I could go on for pages and pages…

If man and chimp didn’t both descend from the same ancestor then surely the designer worked off the same template because there’s no denying the vast majority of parts and assembly are the same. What exactly is the practical difference between common descent and common design when the result is the same – so many undeniable points of similarity that there’s no question of a close relationship of some sort?

Comments

Scott, Just compare AiG's conclusions to those of the independent scientists doing the research. You'll notice that AiG never links to any of the actual articles/studies they're re-interpreting/critisizing out of fear that people might realise how dishonest and deceitful they are. They also like to selectively quote people/articles in apparent support of their position, while the truth is that this ofen not the case.Boesman_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

I believe life came from the same "software factory"; but that doesn't mean that the naturalistic stochastic process that undergirds common descent (as told by evolutionists) is true. That form of common descent is wasteful and leads to many dead-ends. That is not indicative of design.anteater_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Support your claim, Boesman. What data has been "mangled" as "usual". (I'm not suggesting they didn't mangle it, I just want specifics)Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Forgive me Boesman then remove the link, actually I wanted to link directly to the works of Soojin Yi related to this topic. It was pretty big in the Media over here in Germany as everything related to Evolution and Naturalism. But ID seems to swap over more and more :).tb_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Scott, What data are you refering to? All AiG have done, as usual, is mangled the data to agree with their religious views.Boesman_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Phylogenetic trees based upon molecular analyses conflict in significant ways and fail to yield any single tree. Genetic studies also lead to such inferences that the crab morphology, for instance, had to have evolved 5 separate times. This strong and unwarranted (by natural selection) convergence does little to confirm common descent.Charlie_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Forgive the YEC linkage [fellow moderators: feel free to remove this if you feel that there is a credibility issue by linking these, but I assure it has some interesting data on this particular issue] http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1012wash_post.aspScott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

tb, The Dr. Raj Baldev featured in your second linked article is an infamous crank astrologist. https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/661Boesman_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

I am not a biologist and I have trouble following a lot of the talk above, yet I have found an article that might add to the topic. The recent findigs from Biologist Soojin Yi about the linkage of Chips to Humans. The findig of the study suggests that Chimps should again belong to the family Homo, instead of the family Pan based on their genetic clock. Read More: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=57554 I could not find a good Article about it. But here is an Article that should also be of interrest: http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=839 which is rather lengthy and in favor of ID but also addresse the issuetb_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

There is no conflict whatsover between "common design" and "common descent" Where did that nonsense come from? That sounds to me like the BIG LIE technique. You know, you erect a transparent falsehood and then proceed to milk it to death in an attempt to ceate a crisis where none need exist. Common design and common descent to they extent they can be verified are two aspects of exactly the same thing. It is only when common descent fails to be proven that the potential for independent creation rears its admittedly ugly head. In any event I seriously doubt that all of organic diversity can ever be accomodated within a single creation and I am equally confident that absolutely none of it ever could have taken place through chance.John Davison_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Karen Menstruation as it occurs in the human female occurs ONLY in Homo sapiens and the great apes, Chimpanzee, Gorilla and Orangutan and nowhere else in the animal kingdom that I know of. It is only the periodicity that varies. I cannot imagine a better demonstration that all we four share a common ancestor. There is now mounting and convincing evidence that ALL PRIMATES share a common ancestor. Estrus as it occurs in other mammals is an entirely different phenomenon. It is only when we get to comparisons between vertebrate Classes or, in the case of the Amphibia, Orders that we encounter reasons to question reproductive continuity and accordingly monophyleticism. I recently reviewed that evidence here. That evidence has been conveniently ignored by the Darwinians but not by this investigator of that they may remain certain. There is little in comparative embryology that will support a monophyletic origin for either the various vertebrate Classes or the various invertebrate Phyla. All real tangible evidence pleads for polyphyleticism. That does not constitute proof however and it is always best to keep an open mind. That seems to be the tough part. Hypotheses have to be reasonable - facts don't. anonymousJohn Davison_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Es gibt auch Deutsche die hier Lesen, und schade das sowenige Konrad Adenauer kennen:( Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, aber bei dem Universum bin ich mir noch nicht ganz sicher. Albert Einstein Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaÃƒÅ¸te Meinung zu zertrÃƒÂ¼mmern als ein Atom. Albert Einstein Keep on learning German :)tb_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

So when I get goosebumps I have to decide: 1) Am I cold? 2) Am I scared? In the first case I can get a sweater. No problem. But if I'm scared or angry (say, at a job interview) I have a problem, unless I can go rent a ferocious dog costume with HACKLES THAT ARE VISIBLY RAISED. What about dewclaws? I hate them. (No I don't have dewclaws, but my dogs do!) Since they don't reach the ground the nails don't get worn down, and because the nails are curled they can turn around and grow right back into the flesh. They are also prone to tearing and getting caught. Some breeders have them removed from tiny puppies.Karen_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

That's a really interesting point, valerie.Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

The most persuasive evidence for common descent over common design: Take a protein or a gene. Record the differences in this gene or protein across a wide range of species. Using parsimony analysis, construct a tree showing the hypothetical relationships of the species to each other and to their common ancestors. Repeat this procedure for a large number of different proteins or genes. If common descent is true, then the constructed trees should be extremely similar, much more similar than can be accounted for by chance. If common design is true, there is no reason for one tree to bear any similarity to another. After all, the designer can choose to mix and match "parts" in a huge number of different ways. This procedure has been done, and the resulting trees are extremely similar. Thus it makes sense to infer common descent over common design. The only exception would be if the designer chose to imitate common descent for some reason. In this case, and ONLY in this case, common descent could not be distinguished from common design. But then the question would be, why was the designer so motivated to imitate common descent?valerie_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Red Reader, you touched on something that has been at the root of my skepticism of Common Descent, for some time and that is the seemingly impassible obstacles present at the biochemical level. I suppose though, that one could argue that intelligently guided/programmed saltation could work around such obstacles, but the Darwinian Mechanism certainly is not an option. You seem to be imposing limitations on how a designer can turn abstract designs into reality. Keep in mind ID is design detection, not designer characterization. -ds Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/232#more-232 "The final quirk that Pinker considers is goose bumps. Do goose bumps confirm conventional evolutionary theory? If we didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have goose bumps, Pinker would explain them as the result of natural selection selecting them away because they were no longer necessary. Since we have them, they are the result of phylogenetic inertia not getting rid of them. In either case, goosebumps do not explain the evolution of novel biological forms but rather the devolution of existing forms, either by their elimination or by their stultification. Thus, goose bumps provide no evidence for evolution in the grandiose sense that evolutionists intend. What about the intelligent design of goose bumps? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m perfectly happy to consider them a quirk that results from evolution working in tandem with design. But letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s say we had to come up with a design explanation of them. Here goes: goose bumps kick in when weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re frightened or cold or otherwise experience strong emotions. But is it that we are consciously having such experiences or is it the goose bumps that assist in bringing to consciousness such experiences. Goose bumps are, after all, not under conscious control Ã¢â‚¬â€ they are governed by the sympathetic nervous system. Perhaps goose bumps are designed as a way of bringing to consciousness various stresses that need attention. Of course, Pinker could now tell an evolutionary story here as well Ã¢â‚¬â€ that evolution has selected for goose bumps. But that would defeat his purpose in challenging ID."Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Re Chimp menopause: Chimps experience a gradually reduced frequency of menses as they age, with complete cessation recorded in only one chimp. Another difference between chimps and humans is that chimps have estrus (that is, females come into "heat" and are sexually receptive at that time). Humans do not have estrus. Re vestigial organs: Scientists are very much aware that vestigial organs can retain some limited functionality. Other vestigial organs don't seem to do much of anything. One example is dewclaws, the vestigial digits that don't reach the ground. Dogs, cows, etc. have dewclaws. Also, look at "goosebumps" in humans. Goosebumps, in reaction to cold or emotion, serve to fluff up our body hair. In animals this is useful-- it either warms up the animal or makes it look bigger and therefore more ferocious (if you have a dog you've seen his hackles rise when he sees an enemy). For humans who don't have too much body hair this seems pretty much useless.Karen_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

IC and CSI does nothing to either confirm or dispute common descent unless you've adopted some definition of them that isn't as Behe and Dembski have defined them. -ds DaveScot wrote: "What IS mutually exclusive is common ancestry and creation ex nihilo." Yes. We agree on this. "There is abundant evidence of ancestry - life comes from life - and there is no evidence of life ever coming from non-life. Common ancestry is therefore the prevailing theory absent any evidence to the contrary. -ds" Dave, I've written this before, but it bears repeating. IC *IS* the "evidence to the contrary" you say is lacking. Irreducible complexity simply nukes the idea of step-wise common descent. The flagellar rotary motor cannot perform its purpose as a simpler system or with fewer parts. Therefore, descent of the flagellar rotary motor from a common ancestor, whether prescribed or non-prescribed, most likely did not occur with the following caveat: Only if PEH allows that a fully developed bird could have hatched from a creature that is fully not a bird could PEH possibly be true. But in that case, why bother making a distinction between PEH and creation ex-nihilo? They are the same thing. There is no question that the statement "life comes only from life" is true *for* *life* *forms* *that* *already* *exist*. But, scientifically speaking, we do not know and cannot know what occurred at the instantiation of life. Employing the methods of science, we cannot answer this question: Were multiple life forms instantiated in one day? Given that life systems are intelligently designed and that the capabilities of the intelligent agency are therefore unknown, a scientific answer to this question is, why not? We cannot rule out such a possibility because we weren't there and we can't go back there. This is not a faith statement: this is looking at the same evidence you see and saying, "Man, I don't know what might have happened at the genesis of life--one instance or many instances." We both agree Common Design is true in either case. I continue to adamantly defend Dr. Dembski's pointed comment that the question IS scientific and that the question IS open. Respectfully, your friend RedRed Reader_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Scott, There is no "re-use of materials" in homology that objectively supports common design. Vestigal organs don't neccessarily have to be non-functional, just rudimentary, and I don't see how the coccyx aids the immune system, though I assume you were refering to the appendix.Boesman_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Boesman, Nested hierarchies are not a prediction of evolution, and can not be used as evidence of common descent. They have been recognized by man for millennia and were previously scientifically studied and classified with no reference to evolution. This is not a prediction of the ToE but rather an accommodation (yet again) by it. True common descent would be much better represented by a continuous, blurred line with no nests at all. Common descent by loss replacement or genetic mutation would not predict -but is merely unfalsified by - the nesting.Charlie_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Boesman, for the sake of argument, Homology is just as well a sign of common design - Re-use of materials. And Vestigial organs are being shown to have functionality after all. Primarily, in the realm of aiding the Immune System.Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Common design explains nothing because it is entirely subjective. Common descent explains everything in an objective way. Homology. Nested Hierarchies. Vestigal Structures/Organs. The evidence for common descent is just overwelming.Boesman_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

"Exactly what moral capacities do humans have?" From Dembski's article: "It is a fact that people perform acts of kindness that cannot be rationalized on evolutionary principles. Altruism is not confined simply to oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in-group (those to whom one is genetically related). Nor is altruism outside oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in-group simply a quid pro quo. People are in fact capable of transcending the self-aggrandizement and grasping for reproductive advantage that evolutionary theorizing regards as lying at the root of ethics. To see this, consider holocaust rescuers. These were people who aided Jews and others persecuted by the Nazis at great cost and risk to themselves. Genuine human goodness is an unresolvable problem for evolutionary ethics. Its proponents have only one way of dealing with goodness, namely, to explain it away. Mother Teresa is a prime target in this regardÃ¢â‚¬â€if Mother TeresaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s acts of goodness on behalf of the poor and sick can be explained away in evolutionary terms, then surely so can all acts of human goodness. ...Thus, instead of treating Mother Teresa as a model of goodness to which we should aspire, evolutionary ethics regards Mother Teresa as a freak of nature with no future."Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Exactly what moral capacities do humans have? As for chins, of course apes have chins. They just don't keep sticking them out like humans do, just asking for it as it were. I can't imagine the basis for the conclusion that apes do not have menopause. How does one ask them whether they are having hot flashes or not? Since they menstruate, I am confident they also have menopause. But then what do I know? Nothing apparently.John Davison_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

The problem with not adhering to common descent is that you are necessarily appealing to a miraculous creation of species. While such an idea may be true it will never fit within the realm of science.ftrp11_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Yeah!? Well... guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, I've been having these two recurring dreams and it's driving me crazy. One night I dream I'm a Teepee, the next night I dream I'm a Wigwam. Over and over and over. What's wrong with me!?" Doctor - "You need to relax... you're Two Tents." *rimshotScott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no demonstrable evidence that it couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen. That is not how science works. I am sure you are aware of that. DaveScot: The fact remains that there is a world of similarity between humans and non-human primates that establishes a deep and undeniable relationship of some sort. I agree. And I know you are fully aware that the relationship does not have to be via common descent. And I understand that common design does not exclude common descent. What I am saying is that there has to be some positive evidence, besides "it looks like..." to seal the deal. Evolutionists are ALWAYS complaining to IDists that we don't have empirical or experimental evidence, yet it is obvious that they cannot provide the same. We should present the data/ evidence in science classrooms and provide the students with the options as to how that data/ evidence came to be. Then let the discussions begin. I do understand all of the arguments for common descent. My point is that not one of those arguments can be substantiated via empirical or experimental data. Therefore, by Judge Jones' standards common descent must be removed from the public scholls' science classrooms. "My point is that not one of those arguments can be substantiated via empirical or experimental data." This is dead wrong. The empirical data shows that in 100% of the observed cases of life coming into existence it was via descent. If you deny this fact of life there's really no point in me continuing this conversation. Joseph_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Heh, I think the bottom line is that, with the data we currently have, there is going to remain a line of demarcation within the ID tent on this issue. But I think it's an "in-house" debate which we would be remiss to be divisive about. Tents collapse when they are filled beyond capacity. Scott_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, Thanks for your responses! We are keeping you busy... What is the data/ evidence that demonstrates a population of non-humans could evolve into a population of humans? There is no demonstrable evidence. -ds Wouldn't that mean that the premise is un-scientific? And therefore should not be taught in a science classroom. It certainly shouldn't be taught as fact. There's no demonstrable evidence that it couldn't happen. The fact remains that there is a world of similarity between humans and non-human primates that establishes a deep and undeniable relationship of some sort. The relationship is stark, objective, quantifiable reality and doesn't change no matter how it was established. Or is it just taken on faith? Unlike many here I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t take anything on faith. -ds Then what is your argument? That chimps and humans "look" so similar that they must have shared a common ancestor? The argument is that they look so similar, right down the core molecular machinery and life codes, they must have linkage through common ancestry and/or common design. Anyone that doesn't acknowledge the overwhelming similarities is plainly in denial and cannot be reasoned with. Common ancestry and common design are not mutually exclusive. Common ancestry may have simply been the way the abstract design of both humans and chimps was made real. The evolution of them was prescribed by the designer. What IS mutually exclusive is common ancestry and creation ex nihilo. There is abundant evidence of ancestry - life comes from life - and there is no evidence of life ever coming from non-life. Common ancestry is therefore the prevailing theory absent any evidence to the contrary. -ds DaxeScot says: Obviously you believe a designer is responsible. So do I. After careful consideration of the evidence I don't see any other reasonable choice. DaveScot says: The difference is I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t place limitations on the designer. Why do you exclude a designer using a pre-determined path of descent with modification to bring about humans from primates? Could you explain why you limit the methods a designer can choose and the evidence of these limitations?-ds What is the difference between a designer who designs via blind watchmaker-type processes and no designer at all? But I digress. I do believe a designer could create, via intent, just about anything via any method. However there has to be some data that demonstrates that such a transformation, from non-humans to humans in this case, is even possible. In 2003 Scientific American published an article titled "Evolving Inventions". This article, IMHO, gives very strong evidence for front-loading ID- which is very similar to what you are saying above. IOW a cleverly written algorithm sgiven the necessary resources can accomplish many pre-determined goals. And on another note- human legs and human arms are also very similar. Does anyone suggest that legs evolved from arms or arms evolved from legs? No.Joseph_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply