Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Common Descent, Common Design, and ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mung had asked me to do a thread on common descent and common design. So, anyway, I’ll get things started by stating my own thoughts on these ideas. I intend this to be an open discussion, but I also find having a starting idea tends to help get things started.

So, as I have maintained for the last decade, I believe there is no fundamental conflict between ID and common descent. That is, it is fully possible to hold to both at the same time.

In fact, I would say that ID *potentially solves* many problems that common descent would bring. For instance, if you have gaps that are unbridgeable by a traditional Darwinian mechanism, you could posit that there was a prior source of information that the organism used to bridge the gap.

That being said, I don’t myself hold to common descent. If so, how does one explain the commonalities of organisms? The common explanation of this is “common design”. That is, since the same designer was designing these organisms, then we should expect repeated motifs to be used to solve various problems, various design ideas presented with variation, etc. The question is, is there a way to distinguish common design and common descent?

Well, to start with, common descent can actually be a mechanism for implementing common design. Therefore, inferring common design doesn’t necessarily tell you much about common descent.

Additionally problematic is that common descent actually depends on having a specific model of the origin of life. To understand this, let us say that instead of being rare, life comes about rather easily, but ALWAYS in the SAME WAY (i.e., builds the same starting organism, which we’ll call X). Therefore, if you find two X’s, there is NO WAY to tell if they are related by ancestry, despite the fact that they are identical! Let us then say that X is likely to branch to Y and then Z. Again, we could easily have two Zs that share NO common ancestors!

As you can see, inferring common descent as a definite conclusion requires a number of auxiliary hypotheses. These may or may not be reasonable, but they are there. However, *rejecting* common descent can be done with fewer.

Rejecting common descent can be done in one of two ways that I can think of:

  1. Have a model that better fits the character space of organisms, or
  2. Show that certain gaps are unbridgeable genetically.

#1 I believe has been done (at least on an initial basis) by Winston Ewert, with his dependency graph model. #2 is harder because, as I mentioned, in theory there could be repositories of information that help you close the gap. However, you could show that #2 *requires* information to close the gap, and then look and see if any such information repositories are known. Obviously, we might find information repositories in the future, but the question always is about what can we do with the knowledge we do have without overly-worrying about the knowledge we don’t have.

Anyway, along these lines, I think that Stephen Meyer has done a fairly good job with #2 in Darwin’s Doubt, where he discusses the origin of the phyla.

In short, ID can work inside or outside a Common Descent framework. However, ID also allows more degrees of freedom in biological thought, and many in the ID movement feel that the evidence against common descent outweighs the evidence for it. That means that many of the similarities in organisms are the results of common design and not common descent, but there is no logical contradiction in asserting both.

Those are my thoughts – what are yours?

Comments
The similarities are due to a common design and the differences are due to different design requirements required for differing organisms. Gordon:
But there are similarities and differences between organisms that can’t be explained by functional similarity at all. Take, for example, 5 species: great white sharks, whale sharks, orcas, humpback whales, and hippos. Functionally speaking, the first 4 all seem obviously more similar (fish-like-swimming-things), with the hippos as outliers. The great whites and orcas are even more functionally similar (both top predators), as are the whale shark and humpback (both filter feeders). But as far as anatomy, biochemistry, etc are concerned, it’s a completely different story: the great white and whale shark are quite similar, as are the orcas and humpbacks; and the whales are actually much closer to the hippo than to the sharks!
The common design between the great white, whale shark, killer whale and humpback is that they are "fish-like-swimming-things". They had similar design requirements for their environment. The predators and filter feeders also had similarities. Why keep reinventing when you can modify existing plans? The more in-depth common design is that the sharks are, well sharks. You can find them in a Linnaean Classification scheme. The same goes for hippos and the cetaceans. Find them in a Linnaean Classification scheme. And see how closely they should be genetically. Hippos are closer to whales on the chart. So, the similarities between hippos and whales is due to a common design that can be seen on a Linnaean Classification chart. And the differences are due to the different design requirements that each need for their environment. The core of similarities starts at the Animal Kingdom and traces down into Mammalia. Linnaean Classification, ie a nested hierarchy, is the pattern we would expect from a common design with respect to the diversity of life.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
IDists who accept UCD say it was via intelligent design. They also don't know of a mechanism that can produce the diversity of life.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
ET: And yet it is UCD. Like I said, I wouldn't use the term that way but clearly Dr Behe does. I'm just trying to understand what people are saying.JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
JVL:
And he’s thinking of guiding as in influencing mutations . . . yes? I wouldn’t refer to that as common descent.
And yet it is UCD. There isn't any evidence that genetic change is a mechanism that can produce the diversity of life. And there is plenty of evidence against it. So that is a huge problem for anyone who likes UCD- a total lack of a viable mechanism.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
JohnnyB: However, as “common descent” becomes closer to “universal” Just so I'm clear on what you mean . . . what's the difference between common descent and universal common descent? Just to be clear 'cause I tend to take them to mean the same thing.JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
ET: Behe says that he accepts UCD but says that God guided it. And he's thinking of guiding as in influencing mutations . . . yes? I wouldn't refer to that as common descent. Now, if you're right and life forms were designed to evolve along certain lines with no further intervention I WOULD call that common descent. But it used to bother me when you said: ID is not in conflict with common descent. Until I figured out what your flavour of ID is. For me it comes down to: have mutations happened via direct, designer intervention? IF a designer forced several mutations that could not have possibly occurred naturally in a short period of time then I think that's NOT common descent. But that is just me. It's for reasons like this that I try and make sure what kind of ID people are in support of.JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
JVL: ID is compatible with material UCD. However, as "common descent" becomes closer to "universal", the amount of design required increases. Therefore, having UCD actually *increases* the amount of design required, while Darwinists assume that it decreases it. Dembski goes into this in his "Displacement Theorem".johnnyb
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Mung:
“Some within ID may even accept that all felines descended from a common ancestor. What is not clear is why. Do they rely on the same evidence as other scientists? Do they rely on the same reasoning as scientists who accept common ancestry?”
It wasn't a common ancestor. It was a common diverse population of felines.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
There is more to say, but I have to get to work. I would like to get into Ewert's "Dependency Graph" more, though maybe I will make it a separate thread. However, it will probably be a little while before I have time to post again. Sorry :(johnnyb
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Gordon said, "No, there’s a pattern of similarities and differences that don’t correspond to differences in “design requirements”. Take the example I gave back at #8: great white sharks, whale sharks, orcas, humpback whales, and hippos." The argument here, as I understand it, is that, as mammals, whales and hippos are more similar than whales and sharks. I don't disagree. However, I don't think it shows material ancestry at all. I think this shows typology quite clearly. The reason for the similarity is the underlying architecture. This is the fundamental idea of Ewert's "Dependency Graph" idea. I also encourage you to read Agassiz's "Essay on Classification" which covers some of these topics.johnnyb
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Breaking this up into multiple posts for my own sanity :) Mung asks: "Some within ID may even accept that all felines descended from a common ancestor. What is not clear is why. Do they rely on the same evidence as other scientists? Do they rely on the same reasoning as scientists who accept common ancestry?" First of all, I do think that there is a lot of reasoning that scientists in general do not avail themselves of. For instance, in the OP I showed how, based on how the mechanism of the Origin of Life happened, you can have IDENTICAL organisms that do not share a common ancestor. The fact that the OOL researchers are attempting to make the OOL as deterministic as possible, it seems odd that phylogeneticists are not taking this into account, unless they aren't really talking about descent but just similarity. About felines specifically - we can see the variability within the feline line, and the degree to which it varies. We can interbreed different types of felines which seems problematic if they did not share a history. Going beyond felines, we don't have evidence for variability of traits that go beyond that (for example, traits that vary sufficiently to bridge feline and outside groups), or for interbreedability, which would presume ancient compatibility. If you have a UCD *assumption*, then while interbreedability might be *surprising*, it wouldn't tell you much taxonomically since you already believed in UCD. More generally, I think that looking to genetics is overblown. I don't think that genetic distance tells the entirety of distance between organisms. In fact, in my first post on ID and Common Descent I mentioned another, based on agency:
I think that agency is a distinct form of causation from chance and law. That is, things can be done with intention and creativity which could not be done in complete absence of those two. In addition, I think that there are different forms of agency in operation throughout the spectrum of life (I am undecided about whether the lower forms of life such as plants and bacteria have anything which could be considered agency, but I think that, say, most land animals do). In any case, humans seem to engage in a kind of agency that is distinct from other creatures. Therefore, we are left with the question of the origin of such agency. While common descent in combination with ID can sufficiently answer the origin of information, I don’t think it can sufficiently answer the origin of the different kinds of agency.
Since, for naturalists, agency is simply a manner of material causes, a naturalist would not be able to invoke an argument of this sort. As one who thinks that agency is *not* a material cause, material similarity isn't sufficient to create agency similarity. Therefore, even if two organisms are similar genetically, doesn't mean that they are similar in other matters. In fact, ET brought up the fact that even within the material aspects of biology, genetics is far from the whole story. Todd Wood, for instance, believes that apes and humans originated with 100% equivalent DNA but were still morphologically different. While I disagree with Wood's proposition about DNA similarity, I agree wholeheartedly with his reasoning about the limitations of genetic similarity applied to organism similarity.johnnyb
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
JVL, Behe says that he accepts UCD but says that God guided it. And the fact remains there isn't any known mechanisms that can produce the diversity of life starting with unknown populations of prokaryotes. We don't even know what determines the type of organism that will develop. But that is moot as there aren't any known mechanisms capable of producing developmental biology.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
JohnnyB Perhaps I've got the wrong idea about ID then. I take common descent to mean: without intervention. The reason I think so is because I would not say one life form had descended from another if there was some intervention that brought about the secondary life form which would not have existed without the intervention. Anyway, it sounds like it's not completely clear amongst ID proponents either.JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Sorry for being out of the loop a bit, and thanks to all for a great conversation. There's a lot going on in my life at the moment. Excuses, excuses, I know :) Anyway, for terminology, for common descent, for anyone I've ever talked to on this subject, when using the term "common descent" alone without a modifier has meant "universal common descent". Usually, when discussing more limited forms, the term "limited common descent" or something similar is used. Adding "universal" in there each time seems excessive. I'll use UCD here to be more clear. As far as the compatibility of ID and UCD, I've never known a prominent ID theorist to claim they are incompatible with each other, though many ID'ers claim UCD is incompatible with the evidence. Dembski has not claimed incompatibility, Behe agrees with UCD, Meyer has only posed disagreements to UCD on evidence, Nelson views ID as a possible solution to problems in UCD, etc. In fact, I've been surprised at the number of people who misread ID on this point. I think a lot of people (including ID proponents) tend to read ID through the mischaracterization of our opponents than through the lens of what they are actually saying. In the homeschool co-op that I teach in (Classical Conversations), we read "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" in the 8th grade. Despite Johnson's clear prose on this, many, many, many people from both sides of the issue read Johnson as being against UCD, but he seems to me to go out of his way to say that he is not against UCD. Nonetheless, this is how people read him because of the preconceived notions that are brought in. A good point from Mung: "But why should “common design” depend upon the assumption of a common designer? Perhaps there were different designers, with different goals in mind. We should expect repeated motifs based on what we know about design, not upon the basis of belief in a common designer." This is a very good point. At minimum, when reasoning from a single designer, we should include that as a separate consideration, not as a point from ID itself. Being an ID creationist myself, I sometimes forget to do that. Nonetheless, I'm not sure Common Design actually *depends* on this reason, it is just more directly understandable as a concept when thinking this way. In other words, a single designer can have multiple (even competing) goals just as multiple designers can, but thinking about a single designer is often a conceptual simplification (indeed, design does not require a "designer" even - it could be that design is an immanent part of creation). Mung said: "So why then, do so many arguments for ID involve the denial of common descent? What is “the argument from Common Design” other than a way to present “an argument for ID” that seeks to offer an alternative to Common Descent?" The answer to this question is straightforward. We *do* see commonalities in living things. The basic options for this are: (a) +UCD +ID, (b) +UCD -ID (c) -UCD +ID (d) -UCD -ID. I'm not aware of any options available in (d), so we can remove that. If UCD is not true, then ID *is*, because -UCD then removes (a) and (b), leaving only (c). If UCD is false, then arguing against UCD is an easy way to show ID. There was some discussion as to the *mechanism* of design. However, the way design is formed is, by my view, necessarily non-mechanical (or, an equivalent formulation presented by someone earlier in the thread is that design *is* the mechanism - kind of two ways of slicing the same cake).johnnyb
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Mung:
ID claims to not be able to identify the designer.
That is false. ID is not about the designer. Big difference.
I’m just saying that “common design” as it is currently employed has some rather serious holes in it. It needs some work. Maybe it will offer a better alternative to common descent, but as things stand now I just don’t see it.
More jokes. Common design as Mung understands it has some rather serious holes in it. And universal common descent is a non starter.
What is it about “common design” that recommends it as a viable scientific alternative to common descent?
Common design is based on our observations and experiences. Universal common descent is untestable. There aren't any mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Mung:
The mechanism is inheritance.
That's a joke, right? Inheritance gets us humans from humans. So your mechanism fails.
Proponents of common design will admit that common descent explains the present of functional elements and non-functional elements.
No, I don't.
They say that common design explains the functional elements at least as well as common descent, but not the non-functional elements.
Universal common descent doesn't explain anything because there isn't a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations pf prokaryotes.
Now if you are simply not aware of the position adopted by proponents of common design, I can only say that you are not alone. Perhaps they will appear here. But I’m not counting on it.
I am a proponent of common design. Obviously you are not.
ETA: If the similarities require a mechanistic explanation, what is the mechanistic explanation given by proponents of common design?
Again, universal common descent is a mechanistic scenario. That is why they need a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life and yet there aren't any. And also again, design is a mechanism. What is wrong with you?ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
The simplest possible organism is irreducibly complex. Given natural chemical reactions, removing even the smallest (albeit necessary) compon ent results in immediate death and decay (aka the slippery slope down Mount Implausible). Universal common descent begins with the solid assumption that a purely naturalistic origin of life is impossible and yet must have occurred. (Call it experimental error or philosophy trumping science. It really doesn't matter.) Just begin with the assumption of abiogenesis and then assume biogenesis, that life must proceed from pre-existing life. After that it's a piece of cake. No matter how disparate the body plans, no matter the morphological distances and natural discontinuities to bridge, no matter the ability of natural selection to eliminate useless transitional stages and act as a fundamentally conservative mechanism, dotted lines connecting any two organisms back to a "closest" common ancestor can be drawn with ease. No data need apply. Conflicting data ignored. Pay no attention to horizontal gene transfer or any intelligent designer. But would a designer be intelligent if he or she reinvented the wheel with every new species even if it gave the appearance of common ancestry? If you had a perfectly good time-tested ape and wanted to ultimately create the body and brain of a human being why not develop a number of prototypes and call it progressive creation? Engineers, designers and computer programmers do it all the time. Novel body plan or innovation first followed by variations on a pre-existing design. I don't think it's any coincidence that the pervasive patterns of natural history parallel the patterns found in the history of technology. Just a thought.Battman
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
ET@46:
How can Common Descent explain the similarities when that depends on the mechanism?
The mechanism is inheritance. Proponents of common design will admit that common descent explains the present of functional elements and non-functional elements. They say that common design explains the functional elements at least as well as common descent, but not the non-functional elements. Now if you are simply not aware of the position adopted by proponents of common design, I can only say that you are not alone. Perhaps they will appear here. But I'm not counting on it. ETA: If the similarities require a mechanistic explanation, what is the mechanistic explanation given by proponents of common design?Mung
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
johnnyb, perhaps you're no more a fan of "common design" than I am. :) From the OP:
That is, since the same designer was designing these organisms, then we should expect repeated motifs to be used to solve various problems, various design ideas presented with variation, etc. The question is, is there a way to distinguish common design and common descent?
But why should "common design" depend upon the assumption of a common designer? Perhaps there were different designers, with different goals in mind. We should expect repeated motifs based on what we know about design, not upon the basis of belief in a common designer. ID claims to not be able to identify the designer. As such, can it really depend upon an argument that depends upon a single designer? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that "common design" as it is currently employed has some rather serious holes in it. It needs some work. Maybe it will offer a better alternative to common descent, but as things stand now I just don't see it. Take, for example, the distribution of non-functional elements. Some proponents of common design will say that common descent offers a better explanation. So which theory should be preferred? The one that explains only some of the data, or the one that explains not just the distribution of functional elements, but also the distribution of non-functional elements? What is it about "common design" that recommends it as a viable scientific alternative to common descent? And as an appended after-thought, having developed software over the years, I've left behind my share of non-functional code. Is it really possible to say that common descent is a better explanation than common design when it comes to non-functional elements? Pehaps common design can be developed in order to address the entirely reasonable concerns that can be raised against it. I just don't think that work has been done yet. Common Design isn't ready for prime time. Proponents of ID, and I count myself among them, should not take comfort in "common design." It has nothing to recommend it, which is why I avoid it.Mung
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Gordon@47:
Do you have an alternate explanation?
Sure. Common Design. ;)Mung
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
DNA is supposed to be this molecule of inheritance when it is an inherited molecule. Albeit a molecule that controls and influences development. But the only ting DNA determines is whether or not the organism will develop properly. It does not determine the type of organism that will develop. Most of the genes are used for life-sustaining purposes. DNA just codes for the raw materials to carry out development and sustaining engineering. DNA doesn't do anything by itself. It definitely doesn't have any body plan blueprints. DNA doesn't tell the mRNA how it gets processed. And chaperones are responsible for the proper folding of most proteins. Sequence specificity rarely, if ever, has to be 100%, meaning the same protein will result even when the mRNA sequence changes the amino acid sequence. DNA doesn't tell the proteins how they assemble. The alleged and evidence-free RNA world was supposed to be a precursor. DNA was allegedly more stable than RNA. But that is incorrect. Without proteins to keep it together DNA would decay too fast for life to live:
“Each day our DNA is damaged by UV radiation, free radicals and other carcinogenic substances, but even without such external attacks, a DNA molecule is inherently unstable. Thousands of spontaneous changes to a cell’s genome occur on a daily basis. Furthermore, defects can also arise when DNA is copied during cell division, a process that occurs several million times every day in the human body. The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these repair systems function at a detailed molecular level. In the early 1970s, scientists believed that DNA was an extremely stable molecule, but Tomas Lindahl demonstrated that DNA decays at a rate that ought to have made the development of life on Earth impossible. This insight led him to discover a molecular machinery, base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA.” (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/press.html )
from THE ORIGIN OF THE GENETIC CODE People need to get it out of their heads that genetics is evidence for universal common descent. Genetics doesn't determine biological form.ET
April 18, 2021
April
04
Apr
18
18
2021
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Gordon:
No, there’s a pattern of similarities and differences that don’t correspond to differences in “design requirements”.
So you are an expert at designing living organisms that develop from a single cell? But anyway: Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming:
"Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again," Marden said.
So the design is constrained by the physics. And again, there still isn't a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life starting with unknown populations of prokaryotes. Whales and hippos are similar, genetically, because they are both mammals with similar biochemical needs.ET
April 18, 2021
April
04
Apr
18
18
2021
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
ET @ 46:
Common Design explains the similarities and differences in the diversity of life. The similarities are due to a common design and the differences are due to different design requirements required for differing organisms.
No, there's a pattern of similarities and differences that don't correspond to differences in "design requirements". Take the example I gave back at #8: great white sharks, whale sharks, orcas, humpback whales, and hippos. Great whites and orcas seem to have very similar "design requirements", and so do whale sharks and humpbacks, but the designs of the sharks in most ways resemble each other more than they do the whales with the same "design requirements". Worse, the two whales are in a lot of ways more similar to hippos than the sharks, despite hippos having very different "design requirements". And BTW this sort of thing is far from unusual; I just picked these particular species because I think they illustrate the pattern well. If you accept common ancestry as well as ID, this isn't a problem, because the pattern of relationships explains the similarities & differences. But if you reject common ancestry, I don't see any way you can explain it. Do you have an alternate explanation?Gordon Davisson
April 18, 2021
April
04
Apr
18
18
2021
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Mung:
Common Descent does explain the similarities. Common Design theory does not explain the diversity of life.
How can Common Descent explain the similarities when that depends on the mechanism? Common Design explains the similarities and differences in the diversity of life. The similarities are due to a common design and the differences are due to different design requirements required for differing organisms.
The purpose of Common Design Theory is to offer an alternative theory as to to why shrared features are not present due to inheritance., but rather to “Common Design.”
Again, Common Design was FIRST so it isn't an alternative. Common Descent was the alternative to Common Design.
That common design is compatible with inheritance, and thus with common descent, needs to be addressed.
Common Design doesn't say that vertical inheritance doesn't happen.ET
April 18, 2021
April
04
Apr
18
18
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
ET@44:
The similarities observed in the diversity of life. Common Descent can’t explain the diversity of life.
Common Descent does explain the similarities. Common Design theory does not explain the diversity of life. The purpose of Common Design Theory is to offer an alternative theory as to to why shrared features are not present due to inheritance., but rather to "Common Design." That common design is compatible with inheritance, and thus with common descent, needs to be addressed.Mung
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Mung:
What does the theory of common design explain that the theory of common descent cannot?
The similarities observed in the diversity of life. Common Descent can't explain the diversity of life.
What does the theory of common design predict?
Fundamental similarities throughout life.
What evidence would be incompatible with the theory of common design?
Lack of fundamental similarities.
Is the theory of common design even a scientific theory at all?
It is an inference borne from a consilience of evidence.ET
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Mung:
You failed to mention the mechanism for Common Design.
Design is a mechanism. Mechanism being "a process, technique or system for achieving a result". Design being "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan". And plan being "a method for achieving an end b: an often customary method of doing something : PROCEDURE c: a detailed formulation of a program of action". If it helps think of teams of Craig Venter type labs working together. But I digress. Intelligent Design has never been about the specific mechanism. Common Design has always been about explaining the similarities. In fact it was around before universal common descent. Even two of the architects of the modern synthesis recognized this:
One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical basis of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly any change even in method before and after Darwin, except that the “archetype” was replaced by the common ancestor- Ernst Mayr From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles. …the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.- Gaylord Simpson
Common design was first. They stole the evidence and used it to support their claims. Again, from an engineering standpoint it is stupid to keep redesigning proteins, codes and systems. We see it, common design, everywhere in engineering and technology. It is "an often customary way of doing something". Theirs is the mechanistic scenario. Ever since Darwin who claimed to have a process of "slight, successive modifications" to replace an intelligent designer, that onus has always and only been with them. We don't even know how some artifacts were made and yet they are still artifacts. We don't have to know how it was designed in order to know that it was designed.ET
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Buffalo@13
Universal common descent is the issue. Common descent is obvious.
When it comes to the argument from common design, it seems that the issue is not only universal common descent, but any common descent at all. I agree with you that common descent is obvious. If the argument from common design is only intended to address universal common ancestry why don't it's proponents say so? The answer is obvious (to me). The theory of common design purports to offer an alternative explanation to common descent regardless of the cases in which anyone else thinks that common descent is obvious. You and your siblings may not share a common ancestor! The reason you think so should not be attributed to common ancestry, but rather to common design. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. If there is a scientific theory of common design I want to know what it is.Mung
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
From the OP:
In short, ID can work inside or outside a Common Descent framework. However, ID also allows more degrees of freedom in biological thought, and many in the ID movement feel that the evidence against common descent outweighs the evidence for it. That means that many of the similarities in organisms are the results of common design and not common descent, but there is no logical contradiction in asserting both.
Yes, many in the ID movement feel that the evidence against common descent outweighs the evidence for it. Yet it remains the case that common descent and ID are compatible! Not only that, but that some ID arguments actually depend upon common descent! The case for ID should not rest upon the case for common design. The case for ID should not rest upon arguments that common descent is false. What does the theory of common design explain that the theory of common descent cannot? What does the theory of common design predict? What evidence would be incompatible with the theory of common design? Is the theory of common design even a scientific theory at all?Mung
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
^^^^^^^ Selective viewing of evidence? There are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70) Erwin and Valentine's The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin's Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is "Unresolved" - June 26, 2013 Excerpt: "In other words, the morphological distances -- gaps -- between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent." Erwin and Valentine (p. 340) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html
As should be needless to say, that is NOT what Darwin expected.bornagain77
April 17, 2021
April
04
Apr
17
17
2021
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply