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

There is more than one kind of wimp in this crazy world.John Davison_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Do you know why gorillas have such big nostrils? Look at those fingers.John Davison_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Oh, btw, John, you're confusing physics with evolution there. a WIMP is a "weakly interacting massive particle", which is supposed to be the particle dark matter is made of. ;)J90_{February 6, 2006
February
02
Feb
6
06
2006
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

The only practical difference I can think of off the top of my head is taxnomic issues, whether humans should be classified as so closely related to apes if they were found to not be common ancestors but rather commonly designed. Even if common design instead of common descent, the similarities don't change because those similarities, anatomical and biomolecular, are empirical observations. No matter how they got that way, the similarities don't change. This is why I'm asking what practical difference it makes. jasonng_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Humans are the only primate whose breasts are apparent when not nursing. Thank God. Amen. -dsmynym_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

A few differences in a world of similarity. I'm so amazed that this is a matter of dispute. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt. -ds Here's a few differences from Dembski's paper: "(1) The feet of chimpanzees are prehensile, in other words, their feet can grab anything their hands can. Not so for humans. (2) Humans have a chin, apes do not. (3) Human females experience menopause; no other primates do (the only known mammal besides humans to experience menopause is the pilot whale). (4) Humans have a fatty inner layer of skin as do aquatic mammals like whales and hippopotamuses; apes do not. (5) Humans are the only primate whose breasts are apparent when not nursing. (6) Apes have a bone in their penis called a baculum (10 millimeters in chimpanzees); humans do not. (7) Humans have a protruding nose. (8) Humans sweat; apes do not. (9) Humans can consciously hold their breath; apes cannot. (10) Humans are the only primate to weep. These are just a few of the more obvious physical differences between humans and chimpanzees. But the key difference, of course, resides in the intellectual, linguistic, and moral capacities of humans." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf By the way, it was great shaking hands and chatting in person with Dr. Dembski, yesterday. I'll have a brief update of the conference (the portion I attended) soon. Cheers, ScottScott_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

"The first bird hatched rrom a reptilian egg" Otto Schindewolf You bet your bippie it did Otto baby and if these Darwimpian mystics don't like it you and I both know what they can do don't we? You bet we do. Saltational evolution is the only kind there ever was and it is in complete accord with the Presecribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Leo Berg and John A. Davison are in complete agreement that there never was a role for gradualism in any aspect of creative evolution. What the rest of the world thinks, or more accurately merely imagines, is of no consequence whatsoever. Got that? Write that down. How do you like that for intellectual bigotry of the first order. Is that arbitrary enough for you intellectual Phillistines or would you like some more of the same. I have plenty more if you insist on absorbing my abuse and contempt. That goes for both sides in this idiotic debate. SkoalJohn Davison_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Common descent relies on chance stochastic processes. Many paths lead to a dead end, wasting many resources. Common descent relies on a long laborious process with no apparent goal in mind. Common descent is baggage left over from a totally naturalistic viewpoint.anteater_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Whether common descent or common design, one or multiple common ancestors, what I'd like to know is what accounts for the profound discontinuities in the fossil record. I don't think there is any question at this point that these discontinuities are real. Did a lizard lay an egg one day and a bird hatched from it? Was all of the evolutionary process preprogrammed into the first living cell? If so, how did this take place, since the earth in its early history could not possibly have supported life of any kind? These are questions to which we may never know the answers. But one thing is for sure. Random mutation and natural selection had almost nothing to do with the fundamental development of living things. It was designed.GilDodgen_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

I am going to do exactly what the Darwinians have always done with me and my sources. Xavier no longer exists. Sorry about that Xavier but you have given me no other choice.John Davison_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Dr. Davison, You asked that I should read the work of those you cite in your PEH paper. As I am in France it was possible for me to locate and obtain a copy of GrassÃƒÂ©'s book. Now, you say the work does not support your hypothesis (which I suspected from reading through it quickly). Why then cite the work and ask me to read it?Xavier_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Of course Grasse does not support my hypothesis. He is dead and died long before I ever published it. What kind of reasoning, if any, is Xavier using? Never mind, I don't want to know.John Davison_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

I am worried sick about what Xavier, J90 or anybody else thinks about me, my tactics, or my published papers. Instead of offering comments about my work in meaningless, ephemeral cyberspace, I recommend you do it in the only venues that really matter - journal publication or a hard copy book. No one else has because they are afraid to even mention my name. Just imagine Xavier, J90 or anybody else for that matter, you could be the very first to expose John A. Davison as a fraud and a fool. I'll look for the citation, one that I doubt very much will come from a member of this forum or any other internet forum now that I think about it. You bore me to tears with your anonymous snot. Got that? Write that down or take it up with the management and get me banned. I couldn't care less what you do as it means absolutely nothing to me. Be sure to use your real name as well as your cowardly handle when you publish your paper so I will know which one of you it is that had the guts to even mention my name. Nobody else has. Incidentally, if anyone finds me mentioned in a refereed journal or hard copy book, please inform me so I can respond to that courageous soul. How do you like them overdone sirloin tips on a bed of dirty rice with all that greasy gravy all over everything? Awful isn't it. I sure hope so as that's the name of my game. There now, I feel somewhat better. Thanks for giving me this opportunuity to vent a tad. It means a lot to me. I love it so! "Meine Zeit wird schon Kommen!" Gregor MendelJohn Davison_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

DaveScot wrote: "...then surely the designer worked off the same template..." Excellent observation! Professor Crocker called it a "palette": "When I asked her what she made of the extraordinary genetic relatedness of living things, Crocker said she saw it as consistent with the hand of a creator, who uses the same palette of DNA to build protozoa, pandas and people." About 3/4 way through this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.htmlRed Reader_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

I am, indeed, amazed at the list of similarities between the chimp and the human. However, physical similarities, alone, are not enough to convince critical thinkers of the relationship between chimps and humans-- physical similarities, alone, do not indicate a close, phylogenetic relationship between species. Analogous structures, such as the wings of a bat and the wings of a butterfly, do not indicate that bats and butterflies are closely related species. With the aid of modern genetics, though, we have found that homologous structures do occur-- such as the hand of a human, the wing of a bat, and the fin of a whale. While the physical similarities are quite striking, the fact that chimps and humans may share up to 99% of their genome is what makes the difference to me. Coupled with the close genetic similarity of humans and chimps, the close physical similarities between the two species leads me to believe the species share a common ancestor. As I see it, the functional difference between common descent and common design lies in what has caused these changes to come about. One suggests that the relationship has arisen from natural processes; the other suggests that the relationship is the hallmark of a supernatural designer. The one indicates a relationship between all life on Earth-- in and of itself; the other indicates that all life on Earth is connected mostly (if not only-- please correct me if I am wrong) through the designer. The functional difference in causation leads to a functional difference in humankind's relationship with the rest of non-human nature. Not necessarily a supernatural designer. Chimps have a different number of chromosomes. Genome is not as similar as you think, but it's certainly close enough to establish a connection, and closer than any other genome. Bat and butterfly wings are anatomically very different and they don't even use the same aerodynamic principle for flight. Human arms and chimp arms are extremely similar in construction. Common descent doesn't suggest natural causes. It is merely reproductive continuity. A designer may simply choose to do it that way. It doesn't require magic. Common design suggests creation ex nihilo which is something that's never been observed. Living things come from living things. There's no reason at all to think that reproductive continuity was abandoned at any time. Rimona_daVidya_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

J90 LOL, it certainly seems to be the strategy Dr. Davison often pursues.Xavier_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Well, Jon, admitting it doesn't justify it. I guess you follow this Adenauer quote ;) "Machen Sie sich erst einmal unbeliebt, dann werden Sie auch ernst genommen."J90_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, "Where did I say Ã¢â‚¬Å“just as likelyÃ¢â‚¬Â? LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s try to focus on whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s actually been asserted, questions actually asked, and leave the straw men in the land of Oz.-ds" I was just paraphrasing what I've heard people say on this blog.Boesman_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Dr. Davison, I begin to doubt your claiming of GrassÃƒÂ© for a supporter of your singular hypothesis. Whilst only just having obtained his L'Ãƒâ€°volution du Vivant (1973), a quick reading confirms he was sceptical of evolutionary theories current at the time he was writing his book, but does not propose saltation and front-loading as an alternative. He was certainly a theist and had a very distinguished career as a biologist prior to writing this last book, and I wonder if he would have modified his views, had he lived to hear of subsequent scientific developments in the 35 odd years since his final treatise.Xavier_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

J90 whoever that is and I don't want to know anyway: Like hell I twisted his quote. I just added one word to it and said so. If nobody knows who Konrad Adenauer was they are missing out on a great man. He was also a devout Roman Catholic if that matters to anyone. "Since God found it necessary to limit man's intelligence why didn't he also limit his stupidity?" ibid That one is especually appropriate to some of the comments I see on internet forums. ibidJohn Davison_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Just because nobody in the US remembers or knows Adenauer you shouldn't twist his quotes:J90_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

No practical difference to a materialist, which is why they wouldn't be happy with either scenario.geoffrobinson_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Populations don't evolve and never DID. Individuals DID evolve and don't any more. Every genetic change originated in the germ line of an individual organism. Show me an example that didn't. Population genetics never had anything to do with creative evolution and neither did Mendelian (sexually mediated) genetics. Don't take my word for it. Nobody ever does. You see I'm not quite dead yet. Just wait! "A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative evolution. It is, as it were. a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an accident on the 'magnetic tape' on which the PRIMARY INFORMATION FOR THE SPECIES IS RECORDED." Pierre Grasse, The Evolution of Livng Organisms. page 243 (my emphasis) Of course he should have said "played no part" because it is all over folks, just like Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and myself have claimed. Grasse himself implied as much despite the title of his book: "Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna? ibid, page 71 How do you Darwimpian intellectual retards over at "After the Pub Shuts Down" like them pitted green olives stuffed with all them salty anchovies? They make you thirsty don't they? Now like all good little Dawkinsian mystics, climb back up onto your soggy slippery bar stools and have a couple more drinks. You are nothing but a herd of "groupthink," clonal, "natural born" intellectual alcoholics. "When all think alike no one thinks very much." Walter Lippmann "God designed the stomach to vomit up things that were bad for it but he overlooked the DARWIMPIAN human brain." Konrad Adenauer, (my added emphasis) I love it so!John Davison_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

There are several practical differences: (1) Is finding a common ancestor a worthwhile exercise or a waste of time Some consider discovering the truth a reward in-and-of itself. (2) The nature of the original design. Was there a single or multiple front-loads, and at what level? What practical difference does that make? (3) Design-based taxonomy. As Sternberg points out, if ID is true, then taxonomy is the result of putative designs of a designer. Common ancestry would imply that humans are from a single lineage from chimps, while common design allows one to consider the possibility of using multiple design templates for different aspects. Horizontal gene transfer does the same thing. Perhaps that's simply how the designer rearranges things. After a purported designer has a modification in mind, it has to be made into reality by some physical method. We'll have to part company if you propose the mechanisms are magical. Humans aren't from a lineage of chimps, by the way. Chimps and humans are theorized to come from a common ancestor. (4) Whether or not breeding humans with chimps makes sense. For instance, from a YEC perspective, things that share ancestry should also be able to interbreed to a certain degree.No wonder YEC gets no respect from mainstream science. I wasn't aware of this claim. (5) Also, Todd Wood's YEC hypothesis that original kinds differ based on mobile elements is impacted and impacts the idea quite a bit. Basically, since mobile elements are essentially semantic toolboxes, they are indicative of semantic differences. If chimps and humans have different mobile elements, that would indicate that they have a different semantic design. Now, here's another question. Let's assume that there is no practical difference (however, in a search for _truth_ I find that bizzarre -- #1 is always going to get you, even if you don't search for it). Why would one then take common ancestry over common design in the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, especially when there is no known molecular mechanism to do the trick?There are no known mechanisms you are willing accept, perhaps. Read Davison's PEH for a proposed mechanism. The bottom line still remains that there are vast similarities to account for. There is also reproductive continuity to explain. There is not a single observation of life coming from non-life and billions of observations of life coming from life. If not born of a parent, what other possible way is there and why should we believe it's happened when no one has ever seen it happen? ajl - Interesting idea about "conceptual pre-cursors vs physical pre-cursors". Do you have a reference for where Behe (or someone else) discussed the idea? Anyway, since we are searching for a true answer, there is a great difference for those who really want to know (a) how the original design / loading took place, (b) how the differentiation happened, (c) what the lineages of animals are. If these aren't interesting questions, then perhaps common ancestry isn't an interesting question. But I have trouble seeing how these aren't interesting questions in an ID context. I would like to know how the original design _did_ work, not just how it _might have worked that won't offend too many scientists_.johnnyb_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

I understand the superficial appeal of 'common design is just as likely as common descent', but, upon closer examination, common design just falls apart. Where did I say "just as likely"? Let's try to focus on what's actually been asserted, questions actually asked, and leave the straw men in the land of Oz.-dsBoesman_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

The points of similarity still overwhelm the points of difference. Clearly there's a deep relationship. The relationship is either common design or common ancestry. What is the practical difference? Please focus on the question instead of knee jerk special creation reactions about common ancestry - what is the practical difference?DaveScot_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Based on that logic we can say that motorcycles and bicycles share a common ancester: handlebars chain two tires gears brakes . . . While the examples you gave are interesting, it does not rule out common, separate design as designers typically create new machines based on their old design. Yet, they don't retrofit an old machine to make it a new one. Often that is exactly what they do. Wherever did you get the idea that designers never take an existing device and add improvements to it? That's a luducrous assertion.They are created independently of one another.Sometimes. So, a person could still argue that a designer used a blueprint that he liked and made another machine based in part on that blueprint. I think Behe calls that something like conceptual pre-cursors vs. physical pre-cursors. Either way, chimps and people share something in their origin. There is no animal demonstrably more similar in design while there are millions demonstrably less similar. Get used to it.ajl_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Here are some differences (off the top of my head): Humans do NOT have an opposable big toe Knuckle-walker to upright, bipedal locomotion which requires: restructured rib cage restuctured innner ear bones spinal cord opening relocated more spinal curvature pelvis reshaped lower limbs altered the eyes are different language reasoning giving birth is different You can read more: chimps become humans? Also DaveScot you seem to imply that the design goes from body parts to the genome. Hardly. -ds I doubt it works like that. And why would any designer re-invent a part every time "he" designs an organism? 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 Or is it just taken on faith? Unlike many here I don't take anything on faith. -ds Obviously you believe a designer is responsible. So do I. The difference is I don'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 Joseph_{February 5, 2006
February
02
Feb
5
05
2006
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply