Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Relationship Between ID and Common Descent

Categories
Darwinism
ID Foundations
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Since this has popped up a lot in the last few weeks, I wanted to repost an old post of mine describing the relationship between ID and Common Descent. I think it is pretty much as relevant now as when I originally posted it almost 6 years ago.

Many, many people seem to misunderstand the relationship between Intelligent Design and Common Descent. Some view ID as being equivalent to Progressive Creationism (sometimes called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. I have argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and Young-Earth Creationism.

But another category that is often overlooked are those who hold to both ID and Common Descent, where the descent was purely naturalistic. This view is often considered inconsistent. My goal is to show how this is a consistent proposition.

I should start by noting that I do not myself hold to the Common Descent proposition. Nonetheless, I think that the relationship of ID to Common Descent has been misunderstood enough as to warrant some defense.

The issue is that most people understand common descent entirely from a Darwinian perspective. That is, they assume that the notion of natural selection and gradualism follow along closely to the notion of common descent. However, there is nothing that logically ties these together, especially if you allow for design.

In Darwinism, each feature is a selected accident. Therefore, Darwinian phylogenetic trees often use parsimony as a guide, meaning that it tries to construct a tree so that complex features don’t have to evolve more than once.

The ID version of common descent, however, doesn’t have to play by these rules. The ID version of common descent includes a concept known as frontloading – where the designer designed the original organism so that it would have sufficient information for its later evolution. If one allows for design, there is no reason to assume that the original organism must have been simple. It may in fact have been more complex than any existing organism. There are maximalist versions of this hypothesis, where the original organism had a superhuge genome, and minimalist versions of this hypothesis (such as from Mike Gene) where only the basic outlines of common patterns of pathways were present. Some have objected to the idea of a superhuge genome, on the basis that it isn’t biologically tenable. However, the amoeba has 100x the number of base pairs that a human has, so the carrying capacity of genetic information for a single-cell organism is quite large. I’m going to focus on views that tend towards the maximalist.

Therefore, because of this initial deposit, it makes sense that phylogenetic change would be sudden instead of gradual. If the genetic information already existed, or at least largely existed in the original organism, then time wouldn’t be the barrier for it to come about. It also means that multiple lineages could lead to the same result. There is no reason to think that there was one lineage that lead to tetrapods, for instance. If there were multiple lineages which all were carrying basically the same information, there is no reason why there weren’t multiple tetrapod lineages. It also explains why we find chimeras much more often than we find organs in transition. If the information was already in the genome, then the organ could come into existence all-at-once. It didn’t need to evolve, except to switch on.

Take the flagellum, for instance. Many people criticize Behe for thinking that the flagellum just popped into existence sometime in history, based on irreducible complexity. That is not the argument Behe is making. Behe’s point is that the flagellum, whenever it arose, didn’t arise through a Darwinian mechanism. Instead, it arose through a non-Darwinian mechanism. Perhaps all the components were there, waiting to be turned on. Perhaps there is a meta-language guided the piecing together of complex parts in the cell. There are numerous non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms which are possible, several of which have been experimentally demonstrated. [[NOTE – (I would define a mechanism as being non-Darwinian when the mechanism of mutation biases the mutational probability towards mutations which are potentially useful to the organism)]]

Behe’s actual view, as I understand it, actually pushes the origin of information back further. Behe believes that the information came from the original arrangement of matter in the Big Bang. Interestingly, that seems to comport well with the original conception of the Big Bang by LeMaitre, who described the universe’s original configuration as a “cosmic egg”. We think of eggs in terms of ontogeny – a child grows in a systematic fashion (guided by information) to become an adult. The IDists who hold to Common Descent often view the universe that way – it grew, through the original input of information, into an adult form. John A. Davison wrote a few papers on this possibility.

Thus the common ID claim of “sudden appearance” and “fully-formed features” are entirely consistent both with common descent (even fully materialistic) and non-common-descent versions of the theory, because the evolution is guided by information.

There are also interesting mixes of these theories, such as Scherer’s Basic Type Biology. Here, a limited form of common descent is taken, along with the idea that information is available to guide the further diversification of the basic type along specific lines (somewhat akin to Vavilov’s Law). Interestingly, there can also be a common descent interpretation of Basic Type Biology as well, but I’ll leave that alone for now.

Now, you might be saying that the ID form of common descent only involves the origin of life, and therefore has nothing to do with evolution. As I have argued before, abiogenesis actually has a lot to do with the implicit assumptions guiding evolutionary thought. And, as hopefully has been evident from this post, the mode of evolution from an information-rich starting point (ID) is quite different from that of an information-poor starting point (neo-Darwinism). And, if you take common descent to be true, I would argue that ID makes much better sense of what we see (the transitions seem to happen with some information about where they should go next).

Now, you might wonder why I disagree with the notion of common descent. There are several, but I’ll leave you with one I have been contemplating recently. 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.

(NOTE – original post and discussion here)

Comments
I don't think HGT falsifies Common Descent. It just makes it more complicated. Darwinism is safe from HGT as Darwin didn't know the mechanism of heredity and he most likely would have adopted HGT as a form of his pangenesis. To falsify Common Descent you would need to know what makes an organism what it is:
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”- geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti
Until that mystery of species is solved Common Descent is untestable. Could be true but we can't say, scientifically. Then, throw in the Voles- A lot of micro but no macro
The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species. Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64. DeWoody said that this is an unusual finding, since species within a single genus often have the same chromosome number.  
Among the vole's other bizarre genetic traits:  
•In one species, the X chromosome, one of the two sex-determining chromosomes (the other being the Y), contains about 20 percent of the entire genome. Sex chromosomes normally contain much less genetic information. •In another species, females possess large portions of the Y (male) chromosome. •In yet another species, males and females have different chromosome numbers, which is uncommon in animals. 
A final "counterintuitive oddity" is that despite genetic variation, all voles look alike, said DeWoody's former graduate student and study co-author Deb Triant. 
"All voles look very similar, and many species are completely indistinguishable," DeWoody said.  
In one particular instance, DeWoody was unable to differentiate between two species even after close examination and analysis of their cranial structure; only genetic tests could reveal the difference.  
Nevertheless, voles are perfectly adept at recognizing those of their own species.
And after all this “evolution” a vole is still a vole. This study alone should cast a huge shadow over macroevolution and Common Descent.Virgil Cain
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
bFast, You are mistaken. Common descent does not mean having a parent but having a single parent (or, at most, a single parental pair) belonging to the same species. It does not allow for HGT since HGT requires another parent from a species on a distant branch of the hierarchy. Since mating occurs only within one's own species, common descent is necessarily nested. HGT becomes an aberration if common descent is the accepted model. It is obvious that HGT falsifies both common descent and Darwinism.Mapou
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the [crea]tion process.
And yet this worked amazingly well for the pioneers of modern science who were almost(?) entirely YECs. IMO, whoever believes that an idea isn't scientific simply because it involves God is indirectly claiming the pioneers of modern science weren't "scientific" because they added God to the equation.Vy
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Mapou, "If strict common descent (nested hierarchy) is true, then horizontal gene transfers are false. You can’t have both." You may be right with the word "strict" stuck in there. However, if "common descent" simply means that every organism has a parent (kinda hard to call it that in asexual reproduction, but you know what I mean) then common descent is not broken by HGT. (It does become harder to discern with DNA analysis however.) Consider that an HGT event happened in you, you were implanted with a gene that makes you glow (been done in rabbits and mice). You would still be the child of your mother and father. "You" would still have common ancestry, even though that gene wouldn't. UCA, therefore, is not invalidated by HGT even if the word "strict" might be.bFast
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Thanks, gpuccio, for your thoughtful response. In general we are on exactly the same page. May I emphasize you here, "These are scientific problems, and they must be addressed empirically..." Yes! Soooo Yes! "The Third Way" so well illustrates the problem, "One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process." Id is being philosophically dismissed by a group that provides fantastic evidence that the naturalistic option is untenable. An intelligent, strategic force is required for life as we know it, and for the big bang. In a scientific context I would prefer to use very broad terms like this, though one can hardly ignore the g word when you have a single intelligent strategic force that pulls off the amazingly fine tuned universe. For "intelligent, strategic force" to be dismissed on purely philosophical grounds when such provides the only feasible explanation for the data is, well, just silly. If that's what it takes to be scientific, then science is just silly.bFast
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
If strict common descent (nested hierarchy) is true, then horizontal gene transfers are false. You can't have both. Claiming that the majority of observed species can be classified using a nested hierarchy is not good enough, IMO. If even .1% of species break the nested hierarchy rule, Darwinism is falsified. If the HGT happens at the higher levels of the hierarchy, Darwinism is falsified. In other words, if you find pure bat DNA sequences in a whale or a fish, then Darwinism is falsified. It's CD or no CD. No fence straddling allowed, sorry. Intelligent design over time, by contrast, confidently predicts a mostly nested hierarchy sprinkled with many instances of multiple inheritance (HGT). The biggest enemy of Darwinism is computational genomics.Mapou
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
bornagain: I am happy that you understand my point of view. I consider you an old friend, and I hope that only goodwill may be between us. :) It's perfectly true. CD is in no way a sacred cow for me! Indeed, I don't consider even ID as a "sacred cow", but I am happy to admit that, at a scientific level, it is for me as near to that as it is possible. :) Obviously neo darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists need CD: their theories cannot work without it. While ID can work without CD. You are perfectly right about that. ID is, definitely, the strong point. Complex functional information cannot arise, and never has, except that from a conscious intelligent designer. And complex functional information does arise throughout natural history in the living world. That is the simple truth.gpuccio
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Nice post gpuccio. One point. For you CD is not a sacred cow that must never be questioned, (which is refreshing to hear you clearly state), but for Theistic Evolutionists such as BioLogos, and for hard core neo-Darwinists in particular, CD is a sacred cow that can never, ever, be questioned, (and which they never support with any real time evidence as to how it can remotely be possible to morph one creature into another). Case in point, Dawkins almost has a sacred cow when Venter denies common descent is true from the empirical evidence he sees Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuIbornagain
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Likewise Virgil, read the following: Creation/YEC is NOT anti-evolution. See the problem?Vy
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
bFast (and others): Just a few thoughts: 1) It is, IMO, absolutely obvious that new complex functional information has been added to living beings throughout natural history. Each new protein superfamily, each new body plan, and so on, is the result of a huge addition of new complex functional information, and only conscious, intelligent, purposeful agents can do that. 2) Therefore, I absolutely refute, as good explanations, both frontloading (in the sense of an intelligent agent acting only at the beginning of life) and theistic evolution (in the sense of an intelligent agent acting only at the beginning of the universe). None of them can explain even one single complex protein, not any more than neo darwinism can. 3) Design happens in time and space, on our planet, at definite times. 4) Design needs not be gradual. But it needs not be sudden. It can be either, or both, and only facts can help us understand how it happened in natural history. IMO, we have strong evidence of at least some very sudden designs (OOL, the appearance of eukaryotes, The Cambrian explosion, and so on), but there are also hints of gradual design (as explained very well by bFast in his post). 5) CD is a good explanation of many facts, but is is not necessary to Intelligent design. At the same time, it is not in any way incompatible with Intelligent Design, as I have tried to explain. 6) ID just means that all new complex functional information is introduced by some conscious intelligent purposeful being, and cannot originate by any non conscious process. 7) CD just means that many empirical observations are best explained by some continuity in the "hardware". Think of that as a designer continuing to implement new functions working on what he has already designed previously. He does not start from scratch each time, but he uses the existing physical supports of information to add new functional information to them, either suddenly or gradually. 8) For me the only difference is that ID is absolutely supported by all known facts, while CD is supported by many facts, but there are some which are not well explained, and could even be against the theory. Let's remember also that CD needs not be universal. After all, some designs could be from scratch. 9) However, my firm conviction is the following: none of that can be solved by religious or phisolophical preconvictions, or antireligious preconvictions, of any kind. These are scientific problems, and they must be addressed empirically, with a correct scientific epistemology, even in the aspects (and there are many) which have deep philosophical, or religious, implications.gpuccio
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Like I said I have no problem with the idea of CD being a guided process. We see very strict control mechanisms inside living systems and that to me is the giveaway I simply cannot see how unguided process created these guided systems to prevent unguided processes from happening, not in any universe could it ever be possible.Andre
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Interesting, johnnyb. I know I read your post quite lightly, but I did not see my view of a common descent based ID. While I see some possible merit to front-loading, I do not see a compelling reason to believe that front-loading is the universal answer to the puzzle. I point to my favorite gene, the HAR1F. It took on 18 point mutations between chimp and human. This may not be surprising except that it only has two point mutations between chimp and chicken, and those two point mutations do not affect the 3D shape of the resultant RNA. (Did I mention that this is an RNA gene, not a protein coding gene?) In the human there is a fundamental shift in the 3d configuration of the RNA. This 3D shift may be accomplishable with as few as 6 mutations, but not less. Therefore a stack of 6 non-contiguous point mutations must have happened approximately simultaneously to produce this mutational event. I don't find front-loading to be any help in this transformation. Neo-Darwinism is hooped, as far as "Edge of Evolution" theory would say. The "common design" hypothesis could obviously produce this effect. However, the "active agent" model, the view that an active agent has frequently twiddled with DNA, is the best explanation that I can find that does not destroy "common descent". Ie, back around cro magnon, an active agent induced the mutation. Now, even beneficial mutations often die for reasons independent of the mutation (like the lucky mutation carrier falls off a cliff.) Therefore either the active agent then husbanded the mutation into popularity or the active agent kept re-introducing the mutation until it stuck. In any case an 18 point mutational event, or even the minimalist 6 point mutational event would be best explained by an active agent. This could, however, be achieved without destroying common ancestry.bFast
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Even a blind watchmaker is intelligent.Mung
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Intelligent Darwinism (ID) is oxymoronic. Darwinism is just moronic. Blind Watch Maker is Intelligent Darwinism Blind Village Idiot is Darwinismppolish
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Note that since my original posting of this 6 years ago, there has been a rise in the usage of Active Information to measure the amount of information that something contributes to its own evolution. While it has been generally applied to digital evolution, there is no reason to think it can't also be used to measure cellular evolution. So, now there is not only the idea that evolution is guided, there is at least a potential tool to measure the amount of guidance that evolution has.johnnyb
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Here Vy, read the following: Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-EvolutionVirgil Cain
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
So ID' - Intelligent Darwinism?Vy
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Intelligent Design is not an argument for or against Common Descent. As a matter of fact the only way Common Descent could be true is via Intelligent Design. That said there still needs to be a way to objectively test the premise to the exclusion of alternate hypotheses. For example, there needs to be a way to go into the lab, utilize a series of cumulative targeted mutagenesis on fish embryos and see if a fish-a-pod develops. That would be step one.Virgil Cain
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
I recently wrote on some of the monumental hurdles facing the hypothesis of common descent. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/double-debunking-glenn-williamson-on-human-chimp-dna-similarity-and-genes-unique-to-human-beings/#comment-585272bornagain
October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply