And to Jerry: I’m not talking here about ID vs. non-ID. I’m talking about common descent vs. something else, and I’m trying to find out what people think that something else might be.

Here I am speaking from a purely scientific point of view, in a rigorous ID perspective. I try to stay loyal to my commitment to not letting religious “beliefs” have part in scientific discussions.

Ok; I’ve understood your position and I too agree about.

#211 bFast

If the designer is able to manipulate the timing of these natural mechanisms, he/she/it could pull off this 18 simultaneous mutations in a way that would cause a scientist viewing it to say “hey, I just witnessed 5 royal flushes in a row!”

This is also my thought about. I don’t see any problem in the the mere fact that a designer would have chosen to create new biological blueprints
by heavily acting on what was already at disposal. After all, let’s think about the way designers do act in our world. Most of the advancements do require only minor (but INTELLIGENT) modifications of already existant designs; and in some cases the designer does “create” something by heavily modifying current paradigm, but very rarely by completely discarding the older ones.

There is no doubt in my mind that the HAR1F gene would appear highly unlikely if engineered that way. My point is that you cannot show that this is the method that was used to engineer life on earth. After all, even human genetic engineers can build DNA molecules one letter at a time. The life designer that I envision would have the ability to replicate extremely long strands of DNA molecules quasi-instantaneously.

I’ll go even further. I don’t see the need to work directly with actual molecules at all. At least not initially. Why not use a virtual machine that is powerful enough to simulate an entire organism? It would be like a writer composing and revising an article on a computer before printing out a perfect copy.

If modern day engineers can use simulations for project design, why must a designer of complex life be forced to manipulate the timing of natural mutation events in order to compose life? Makes no sense to me. As advanced as he is, he should have the ability to use virtual genes to create fully-formed virtual organisms before outputting a fully-formed copy. Heck, he might even be able to do all of this with his mind, depending on how advanced he is.

I choose to reject common descent based solely on my conviction that an intelligent designer who is advanced and powerful enough to engineer complex life would not be constrained to use such a low-tech and inefficient mechanism.

Your description of a design event is painfully anthropomorphic:

It makes sense to me that any designer who is advanced enough to design and engineer complex life would not be constrained by primitive human-like engineering methods that involves gene-splicing, insemination and birth.

I suggest that the designer uses a very different model than you describe. Consider the HAR1F gene. It has 18 specific mutations that appear to have had to all happen at once. This is well beyond the scope of natural laws. Yet natural mechanisms exist to cause mutations in organisms. If the designer is able to manipulate the timing of these natural mechanisms, he/she/it could pull off this 18 simultaneous mutations in a way that would cause a scientist viewing it to say “hey, I just witnessed 5 royal flushes in a row!”

you said

“what would we see – when a new organism comes into existence ”

Probably something similar to what will appear from the biology laboratories at MIT or other institutions when they modify existing organisms. And since they will essentially be modifying current genomes, you could call it a sort of common descent with modification. Except it will be an intelligence doing the modification.

Jack, how hard is this to understand. I know all your attempts is to try paint a supernatural spin on this so you can then tout ID as religious. But give it a rest and just look at the data for a change and keep away from your ideology.

You are getting so predictable in your comments.

I can’t think of any observation that might indicate beyond a doubt that some creatures were engineered fully formed. Not even the Cambrian explosion or any other biological explosion could be used as evidence in my opinion. I choose to reject common descent based solely on my conviction that an intelligent designer who is advanced and powerful enough to engineer complex life would not be constrained to use such a low-tech and inefficient mechanism.

so I am wondering what alternative hypothesis within an ID framework is offered by those who don’t accept common descent

Uncommon Descent

(Sorry I couldn’t resist…but it is true. Limited common descent, rather than universal. See Walter ReMine’s Discontinuity Systematics for one example.)

I do not think that common descent or the lack thereof is essential to the design hypothesis, as I understand it.