I promised John Harshman for several months that I would start a discussion about common design vs. common descent, and I’d like to keep my word to him as best as possible.
Strictly the speaking common design and common descent aren’t mutually exclusive, but if one invokes the possibility of recent special creation of all life, the two being mutually exclusive would be inevitable.
If one believes in a young fossil record (YFR) and thus likely believes life is young and therefore recently created, then one is a Young Life Creationist (YLC). YEC (young earth creationists) are automatically YLCs but there are a few YLCs who believe the Earth is old. So evidence in favor of YFR is evidence in favor of common design over common descent.
One can assume for the sake of argument the mainstream geological timelines of billions of years on planet Earth. If that is the case, special creation would have to happen likely in a progressive manner. I believe Stephen Meyer and many of the original ID proponents like Walter Bradley were progressive creationists.
Since I think there is promising evidence for YFR, I don’t think too much about common design vs. common descent. If the Earth is old, but the fossil record is young, as far as I’m concerned the nested hierarchical patterns of similarity are due to common design.
That said, for the sake of this discussion I will assume the fossil record is old. But even under that assumption, I don’t see how phylogenetics solves the problem of orphan features found distributed in the nested hierarchical patterns of similarity. I should point out, there is an important distinction between taxonomic nested hierarchies and phylogenetic nested hierarchies. The nested hierarchies I refer to are taxonomic, not phylogenetic. Phylogeneticsits insist the phylogenetic trees are good explanations for the taxonomic “trees”, but it doesn’t look that way to me at all. I find it revolting to think giraffes, apes, birds and turtles are under the Sarcopterygii clade (which looks more like a coelacanth).
Phylogeny is a nice superficial explanation for the pattern of taxonomic nested hierarchy in sets of proteins, DNA, whatever so long as a feature is actually shared among the creatures. That all breaks down however when we have orphan features that are not shared by sets of creatures.
The orphan features most evident to me are those associated with Eukaryotes. Phylogeny doesn’t do a good job of accounting for those. In fact, to assume common ancestry in that case, “poof” or some unknown mechanism is indicated. If the mechanism is unknown, then why claim universal common ancestry is a fact? Wouldn’t “we don’t know for sure, but we believe” be a more accurate statement of the state of affairs rather than saying “universal common ancestry is fact.”
So whenever orphan features sort of poof into existence, that suggests to me the patterns of nested hierarchy are explained better by common design. In fact there are lots of orphan features that define major groups of creatures. Off the top of my head, eukaryotes are divided into unicellular and multicellular creatures. There are vetebrates and a variety of invertebrates. Mammals have the orphan feature of mammary glands. The list could go on and on for orphan features and the groups they define. Now I use the phrase “orphan features” because I’m not comfortable using formal terms like autapomorphy or whatever. I actually don’t know what would be a good phrase.
So whenever I see an orphan feature that isn’t readily evolvable (like say a nervous system), I presume God did it, and therefore the similarities among creatures that have different orphan features is a the result of miraculous common design not ordinary common descent.
So it has nothing to do with evolution, and claiming it’s a prediction of evolution is utterly gratuitous.
I’m just an anomaly on the tree of life.
She ran out of materials.
Mung:
Thank God (so to speak) that you’re not the norm.
I would, but you’d just deny it’s convergent and claim it’s there due to common descent. I know how this game is played.
🙂
Regardless of evolution. That’s what you’re saying. Maybe we can finally agree then.
newton,
The designer created two architectures prokaryotic and eukaryotic. The eukaryotic could scale into multicellular life. The architecture used was to be able to change animal types primary with a change or addition to the DNA code.
I find this design incredibly elegant and it clearly allows for a hierarchical structure as code is added. In addition alternative splicing allows for simpler changes in code by allowing deletion or inclusion of exons allowing for additional gene isoforms.
How this code changed across species remains a mystery.
Sal charges? LoL. Does he have a way to beat the odds in Vegas?
I’m one in a million. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility that your neighbor might well be one of me.
Allan:
Mung:
Then present one and out-argue Allan. Show us why your explanation of the feature is better than his.
Or run away, as you usually do.
keiths:
Mung:
That’s what he said in an earlier OP:
You have to wonder who the schmucks are that actually pay him.
Bill, are you one of Sal’s subscribers, by any chance?
That just convinces me that you know nothing about what you imagine is the “design” of either eukaryotes or prokaryotes, nothing about what “code” means in biology, nothing about how one species differs from another, and nothing about the nested hierarchy of life. Do you think you know anything about any of those?
The weird thing is that Bill ought to know, from his experience at TSZ alone, that he’s terrible at science, while most of his opponents are quite good at it. Why he gives any weight to his opinions on scientific issues, particularly when knowledgeable folks disagree with him, is therefore a mystery.
It must be the Jebus Effect.
WaaaahhhHHHH!
Cell membranes are a convergent feature of cells. So is RNA and DNA and the transcription and translation apparatus. So are metabolic systems.
There were oodles and oodles of warm little ponds all over the earth and the fundamental unifying features of life arose independently many times via convergent evolution.
Or if you’re a deep sea vent type of guy, there were oodles and oodles of those too, and far from equilibrium physical systems spanned the globe.
Then there are those who think that life was a miracle.
I’m good at science. Pick me! Pick me!
Don’t fool yourself. You’re a retired engineer, not a scientist.
John Harshman,
I think you do not understand my point. You have a very narrow bandwidth of communication you tolerate based on extreme cognitive bias. This was an answer to Newton not to you.
Mung,
As if it were impossible for retired engineers to be good at science.
Come on, Mung. Surely even you can see how stupid your statement is.
colewd:
That’s an understatement.
Another understatement.
Bill,
Why are you arguing against common descent when you don’t even understand the arguments we (and the biological community) are making for it?
Doesn’t that strike you as, well, stupid?
Mung,
We’re still waiting for an actual argument from you.
Pick a convergent feature that you think presents a problem for common descent. Then present your best argument to that effect. I’m sure Allan will respond.
Don’t be afraid.
Why does it matter who the comment was in response to? I think you do not understand your point or much of anything else. But go on: what was your point? Please explain it clearly. Please do not rely on stretched metaphors and vague pronouncements. And please answer my questions when I ask them, rather than always ignoring them.
John Harshman,
Changed the word code to DNA sequences.
colewd:
Giving us this nonsensical sentence:
Jesus, Bill.
keiths,
I don’t understand the nested hierarchy argument well however if I were to concede this is positive evidence it does not take away from the contradictory evidence like gene groups missing in closer lineages and present more distant ones.
The other issue is complex features not following the expected path that descent would entail. These are killer issues that your side seems to be in severe denial on.
In the best cdesign proponensist find & replace tradition, LMFAO
You will have to explain why “gene groups missing…” etc. is contradictory to common descent; specifically, you need to explain why multiple losses of a gene are not a reasonable explanation. You will also need to explain what you mean by “gene groups”, which seems meaningless as you use it.
You will also have to explain what “not following the expected path” means.
You will have to, but you won’t.
colewd:
How would you know that they’re “killer” issues? You just acknowledged that you don’t even understand what we’re talking about. Why are you wasting everyone’s time trying to come up with objections to a hypothesis and an argument that you don’t even understand? (Apart from the Jebus Effect. We already know about its pernicious effects.)
Wouldn’t it make more sense to learn first what the common descent hypothesis is and how the ONH supports it, and then to look for flaws in it? Otherwise you’re just embarrassing yourself and subjecting others to the tedium of swatting down your inept objections.
I’m still wondering about this:
No, that isn’t what I’m saying.
You won’t get branching if there’s no accumulation of change. If they’re all just clones you won’t get a nested hiearchy as no character states will diverge.
Mung. Please. Just think before you post.
Rumraket,
You’re asking Mung not to be Mung. He can’t do it.
Glen,
I don’t deny the possibility of a “tweaker” at all. I just point out that there are many, many ways of guiding evolution besides being a tweaker, most of which will not produce an ONH of the kind we see.
That’s why John’s statement is false:
Rumraket,
As I said earlier, your definition of “guided evolution” is way too restrictive. It needn’t be limited to mere selection.
I consider guided evolution to be evolution that is guided. That is, guided evolution is descent with modification — the evolution part — whose direction is at least partly determined by an intelligence — the guided part. The guidance could come via selection, as you suggest, but it could also come via targeted mutations.
You’re saying that more guidance disqualifies it from being “guided evolution”? That makes no sense. It’s still evolution — descent with modification — and it’s still guided. Guided evolution.
Mung,
Strange fruit.
Mung,
That’s rather ridiculous. If you think DNA replication has nothing to do with evolution, you’ve been reading the wrong books.
Mung,
Try me. I’m simply looking for support for the claim that convergence casts doubt upon common descent. I can’t see how it does myself; it’s not a trap. So, an example would be something to discuss, rather than simply making a claim and not backing it up.
Mung,
Those aren’t convergent, according to my understanding of the term. How have you determined that they aren’t inherited from common ancestors?
Mung’s right, I guess. ‘I’ll just deny they’re convergent‘.
Yeah you were supposed to just agree and concede. C’mon Allan get with the program.
Yes, that last sentence sounds about right. You believe that biodiversity is caused by differences in design, and now you are retrofitting your expectations on the pattern of character distribution among species.
It’s up to you I guess, but please realise that denying the nested hierarchy of life is an even slightly cookier position than saying that common descent cannot explain it. The observation of the nested hierarchy preceded the explanation by common descent by a good deal.
“Evolution” can predict many things, depending on how you define it. If we use the minimalist definition of evolution (changes in allele frequency) then you are right, but that is not what we have been discussing here. We have been talking about evolution as the combined action of anagenesis (lineage change) and cladogenesis (lineage splitting).
Hey look: cladogenesis = branching.
In order to be convergent, they first need to be different. Mung shouldn’t pick features that are shared by every single creature on the planet.
That seems to be Behe’s position.
Poof.
Corneel,
Can you give me a clear definition of a nested hierarchy? Do you think living organisms fit perfectly into that definition? If you think this pattern clearly points to common ancestry, please explain how. Do you have any comment on why most branches have an ancestor with no identify?
Do you always ask this many questions?
Sorry Bill, I am not going to explain this stuff. Type the words “taxonomy” and “phylogenetics” into your favorite search engine and you’ll get lots of nice resources like this. I also have seen the link to Theobald’s 29+ evidences pass by several times in this thread.
For the personal stuff; I would say a nested hierarchy is the nested ordering of species into successively more inclusive taxa (thought that one up myself just now, so use at your own peril). Yes, I think species are ordered that way and that common ancestry neatly explains why this is so.
I don’t have any comment on why most branches have “an ancestor with no identify”, because I don’t have the faintest idea what you mean.
Wait, it’s only now that Bill wants to know what a nested hierarchy is, after having alternately tried to explain it by design and denied its existence for thousands of posts? Shouldn’t that have been the first question?
There you go again, John. You should be more tolerant of a wider bandwidth of communication.
Then why did you write the following?
Because now you are saying branching is not inevitable.
Make up your mind please.
And a bit nutty.
Except that I did not say that DNA replication has nothing to do with evolution.
But nice try. 🙂
😀
As predicted.
Now if you can just demonstrate that evolution predicts cladogenesis. Or even anagenesis for that matter.