Common Descent at Uncommon Descent
| January 31, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution |
I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin’s single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion.
To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community’s diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single “Tree of” and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.
In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor.
92 Responses to Common Descent at Uncommon Descent
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Xavier
As usual you demonstrate that you have not read my papers, some of which are a touch of your mouse away right here at Uncommon Descent. I am not going to respond to you until you can demonstrate that you have. I may not even then. My work is now preserved for all time on the shelves of the world’s libraries and until you can demonstrate that you have read it and the authors on which my own work is based I am not going to respond to you. I am certain that my position is transparently clear to anyone with the necessary background to understand what I have written. At my age I just don’t have the time. I hope you will understand, but if you don’t that is just too bad.
I am also sorry that Salvador is confident there is not enough room in the genome of any organism especially since, as nearly as I can determine, there is not an organism on the surface of this planet that is still capable of any further major change. The only thing that I see they are capable of is extinction which many of them are really good at as any one can see if he would only look objectively at what is happening.
Skoal
“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it or, having read it, comprehend it.”
John A. Davison
RedReader said:
“The problem with extrapolation is it comes equipped with blinders.
a) “both have them†and “share them†are two different concepts. Automobiles and playground equipment do not “share†nuts and bolts.
Your distinction is trivial. Human and chimp endogenous retroviral sequences have high homology – akin to an automobile and a piece of playground equipment using exactly the same type of a nut and bolt.
b) …suggests “derived from a common ancestorâ€Â. Why not “derived from a common designerâ€Â?”
It is formally possible that they are derived from a common designer. I do not rule that possibility out of hand. However, given our current state of knowledge about endogenous retroviruses, (i.e. that they integrate into genomes in a pseudo-random fashion and are inherited), the more parsimonious explanation is that the retroviral sequences in question inserted into the genome of a chimp/human ancestor.
““…suggests that humans and chimps are most closely related.†Which are more closely related: John Deer tractors and John Deer pickups or John Deer Pickups and Ford Pickups?
Answer: Neither.”
I don’t see the point you are making. You are setting up two categories, name (Ford, John Deere) and class (tractor and pickup) and are saying that all combinations of name and class are equally similar (or dissimiliar). How does this relate the situation I describe with primates, where one can construct a cladogram based on increasing conservation of ERV sequences (or other genetic features)?
“OK, this is bigoted:
“It is of course possible that a Designer decided to stick these bits of DNA in our genomes to fool us.†Since you are not privy to the Designer’s plans you have no way of knowing why the Designer made any of the choices He/She/It made. You have made yourself the judge of the Designer, an absurd “suggestionâ€Â.”
First, calling me bigoted is rude. Please desist. The point I was making is that if one invokes a Designer of unknown motives and power – as you have just done – then nothing is incompatible with design. Invoking such a designer is an epistemic dead end, as it can explain everything superficially, and nothing in detail.
-DaveWatt