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.
Have you lost interest in trilobites?
It’s amazing how we end up arguing very basic facts and logic that should be beyond dispute.
How can it even be an issue that intelligence or God or what-not could make hierarchies that could fake evolutionary hierarchies? Even the term “hierarchy” goes back to hierarchies that we created in religion, and that continue to exist in areas like religion and the military. Of course we can make hierarchies, but why would anyone make specifically evolutionary hierarchies in life when known designers match up structure to fit the need (economies and compatibility being part of “need”) rather than sticking mindlessly to ancestry?
Everything must be attacked in order to defend the “Designer,” from facts to logic itself.
Glen Davidson
Alan Fox,
No. I would be happy to keep discussing.
GlenDavidson,
If features were created by inheritance why is echolocation not shared by all mammals?
You continue to ignore contradictory evidence.
This after just admitting that common descent does not predict a particular pattern.
Make up your minds.
Why should it be?
We see echolocation in animals that must locate things in the dark, where eyes don’t work very well. Even with respect to that, we don’t typically see it in animals that deal with sessile or slow-moving food, because eyes adapted to the dark plus scent and feel are capable of dealing with that for the most part. Also, if you can hear rustling you don’t need echolocation, which prey might very well evolve to hear anyway. Hunters using echolocation tend to be hunting things that aren’t readily heard.
Why don’t you ever bother to think these things through?
Why don’t you tell me why common design didn’t give echolocation to all mammals, or is this your typical “evolution has to answer everything, design doesn’t need to explain anything” line?
How is that contradictory evidence at all, other than in your poorly-informed mind?
Glen Davidson
Further reason to think that random mutation as the source of the data we see is just nonsense.
keiths,
I am a little slow to accept ideology that masquerades as science. Your argument style appears to be the result of selling ideology. Glenn is clearly selling ideology because his consciousness thesis depends on it.
DNA_Jock,
You are making the same mistake as Sal. Sal Cordova. That ought to give you pause.
He’s making it in support of creationism, and you in support of guided evolution, but it’s essentially the same mistake.
He’s saying “Look, here’s how the Designer could have produced an objective nested hierarchy,” as if we had ever argued otherwise. You are saying “Look, here’s how the Guider could have produced an objective nested hierarchy, as if I had ever argued otherwise.
Of course it’s logically possible for a Designer, or a Guider, to do those things. The question is whether the two of you can justifiably assume that he’ll do those things.
The answer is clearly ‘no’. Neither of you has a hotline to the Designer/Guider (if one even exists), or any special insight into his goals, his abilities, his limitations, and his preferred mode of operation.
The number of ways in which he could produce an ONH are vastly outnumbered by the ways in which he could fail to do so. Thus there is no reason to expect that his activities will produce an ONH.
More predictions of common descent? ?Because if common descent doesn’t predict that the “phylogenetic signal” can’t be lost then it doesn’t predict the nested hierarchy.
colewd,
Fixed that for you.
Said the IDist who can explain nothing non-trivially via ID.
Is that what your ideology tells you?
Uses it, but doesn’t depend on it per se (could be designed that way, although that goes for anything). My consciousness ideas rely on science in general, but you call the evolutionary aspect “ideology” and not the physics aspect. Like an ideologue would be expected to do.
Glen Davidson
John:
Mung:
You’re almost as lost as Bill, Mung.
GlenDavidson,
So how did the echolocation genes suddenly appear in Whales that don’t exist in the ancestors. Are you now going to make the claim that selective pressure can create the necessary sequences for echolocation?
Have you ever question your assumptions here, Glen?
A sarcastic remark that shows your level of denial. Your hypothesis is built on a house of cards.
GlenDavidson,
ETA: Got to see this live in Dallas.
Another in a growing line of you making nonsensical objections
The source of the data we see is imperfect copying of DNA-templates. The data set was not synthesized de novo by randomized sequence generation.
A nested hiearchy is a particular pattern. It doesn’t have to be a specific nested hiearchy.
How many of these incompetent objections are you going to make? At this point it seems to be the entirety of your output.
So now we’re back to you bringing up this dumbfuckery again.
Again, common descent predicts a nested hiearchy under some set of conditions, which if violated, it no longer applies. Common descent doesn’t say that the signal can’t be lost, but that it depends on things like mutation rate, genome size, population size and so on. And those numbers would have to be something that isn’t observed in actual biology, across the diversity of life. So since those conditions manifestly don’t obtain, common descent predicts the nested hiearchy.
We’ve been over this crap before. You were wrong then, you are still wrong now. Did you buy a new brain-reset-switch from Bill Cole?
Mung’s been at this for 15 or so years. He ain’t gonna learn.
This is the best thread ever. I will advertise this thread everywhere on every forum I frequent on the internet where evolution is discussed. This what they have, IDcreationists, this flailing nonsense we see from Sal, Mung and colewd.
I’m beginning to understand why Nick Matzke was so dismissive in his 2-part review of Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt crackpottery. Meyer is supposed to be one of the Top Guys(tm) at the Discovery Institute, and he was equally flailingly incompetent on basically every subject.
Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, Part II. By Nick Matzke
Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, Part III. By Nick Matzke
Many of the same subjects, and several more related ones are covered in that review. The most recurrent theme for IDcreationist nonsense arguments is that Douglas Theobald already covered that in his 29+ Evidences for macroevolution.
colewd,
OK. I’m in England for a few days but I’ll post an OP when I’m back home next week.
Then why have you swallowed it with a psychotic conviction?
Phillip Johnson:
“This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” World Magazine, 30 November 1996
“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.” Foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000)
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
Says Bill, who by his own admission doesn’t understand Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
You’re dismissing a hypothesis that you don’t even understand, Bill. How very creationist of you.
We have better access to The Designer than you have to “unguided evolution,” whatever that is. We don’t even know if “unguided evolution” is possible.
That’s a non-sequitur.
So you think the mutations are guided?
What you have, with your “unguided evolution” is a random generator generating the data. Now you can reject John’s reasoning or you can accept it. If your random generator is generating the data then there’s no reason to believe it would create an ONH. By your own logic.
Come to the light.
Mung:
Well, then by all means ask him “What’s up with the evolution mimicry?” Let us know what he says.
That’s Mungese for “I wish I had a counterargument, but I don’t.”
Magic. Take a random sequence generator, utter the magic words “natural selection,” and POOF! Echolocation.
That’s Mung’s understanding of evolution, after 15 years.
15 frikkin’ years.
So you’re a creationist then. I had suspected.
Unless you accept non-random mutation, as far back as you care to trace it, it was random sequence generation. That’s the source of your data and it’s the only source of your data. Don’t you even know your own theory?
Changes small enough that they could come about by random chance alone. That’s your theory. And that’s the source of your data. If the data doesn’t reflect that, then maybe your theory is wrong.
LoL. So it predicts any old nested hierarchy! And it predicts every old nested hierarchy. That’s some prediction. And nothing to distinguish it from common design then. You realize don’t you that you are saying of common descent the same thing that gets criticized about common design? It’s “prediction” is too broad and vague. So there’s no reason to believe it.
As many as it takes for you to see how silly your arguments are.
Yes, I got that. Common Descent predicts a nested hierarchy except when it doesn’t. Do you really want to go back over that again? You’re saying the exact same thing I am. You’re just using weasel-words to do it.
Common Descent cannot predict that there will be a nested hierarchy unless it also predicts that the conditions under which a nested hierarchy are not achieved cannot be present. But that ship already sailed.
Oh, wait, I think I finally get it. Like Christians predicted the return of Jesus in 1987. So it’s a prediction, even it false. The prediction of a nested hierarchy may be false.
So Common Descent predicts a nested hierarchy the way that Christianity predicts the return of Jesus. It if happens, it happens. Otherwise we just have to keep waiting. Like that?
No, it’s Mungese for your conclusion does not follow. Can’t you even make a simple argument without mucking it up?
Not unless the design change was deliberately made to appear as if common descent took place.
And that still didn’t produce any nesting hierachical structure in the data, much less significant levels of congruence between trees constructed using independent data sets.
No, they really aren’t.
Is that all? I’m sure it’s been far longer. And evolutionist arguments haven’t improved. As near as I can tell the evolutionists here still don’t even understand their own theories.
They weren’t “created by inheritance”. They evolved by mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. The “feature” you are so impressed by in whales is really just adaptations to the hearing system, and in so far as convergence exists between bats and whales it is really just in the broadest sense of “navigating by sound in the dark”, while the convergence in implementation is only observed at the level of less than 10 amino acid substitutions in a particular gene.
And you continue to open your mouth and blather about things you don’t understand, never did, and given how long you’ve been personally tutored on the subject, evidently never will.
What echolocation genes? And do you happen to have the ancestors of whales around?
What necessary sequences for echolocation?
No, he didn’t make a non-sequitur. Given the statements he made, if those are all that we know, he’s right in that from that alone, we would not expect the designer make a nested hiearchy.
No. What you have is a template copying process that once in a rare while, makes an error that is random with respect to it’s effect on fitness.
My opinion of Mung is obviously not very high, but at one point I did at least credit him with understanding why common descent was true. I now see that that was premature.
He has no idea why common descent is such a slam dunk.
colewd:
Teh lions dont ehcolokate. Therfor evolushun ain’t true.
Yes, the theory of common descent merely predicts a nested hiearchy. It doesn’t predict a particular branching order of life. If we went to another planet with life, then common descent would only predict that if that life shared descent, we should find independent data sets to yield a high level of congruence between phylogenetic trees made therefrom.
Sort of like plate tectonics doesn’t predict the particular layout of tectonic plates on a geologically active planet, just that there will be mountain ranges and volcanoes and things like that where plates collide and so on and so forth.
What common design? What does that even mean?
No, I’m not saying that at all and it’s incredible that this isn’t obvious to you.
My own criticism of common design is that it makes no prediction at all. And certainly not a quantifiable one.
And by the way what you say is demonstrably false, as common descent predicts statistically significant levels of congruence between indpendent phylogenies. And you can even put numbers on it. Read Theobald.
Then let me inform you that no amount of incompetent objections will manage to show any of my arguments silly. That’s just the nature of incompetent objections. So since you seem to want to show me that my arguments are silly, I suggest you stop trying to do that with incompetent objections.
Rumraket, to Mung:
What else does he have?
I repeat, since you don’t seem to get it, that I accept common descent. It would still be true even if common descent does not “predict” a nested hierarchy.
Put another way, I don’t feel compelled to believe that common descent must predict a nested hierarchy for it to be accepted. Apparently some people would be utterly set adrift if they had to accept that a nested hierarchy is not an inevitable outcome of common descent.
Why do people insist that a nested hierarchy is an inevitable outcome of common descent while at the same time admitting that it isn’t, that in order to be able to “predict” a nested hierarchy you have to have something else in addition to common descent?
Why don’t you explain it?
It’s not that hard to see how hearing and vocalizing organisms could be “naturally selected” to hone those capacities for echolocation. And no, I’m not jumping through hoops for someone who hasn’t bothered to ever question the total lack of meaningful evidence for ID.
Why would that be so hard to believe?
Yes, unlike you whose very means of “argument” consist of demanding explanations from evolution while having none from ID.
Says the person who didn’t even know that live birth is not diagnostic of mammals. Christ, you know nothing about biology (or critical thinking) while flinging utterly baseless charges of “ideology” at those who do.
Learn something, even if you remain committed to meaningless “explanations” while flinging poo at the only actually explanatory theory.
Glen Davidson
So you accept that the first template copying process was created? That some sequences in the template didn’t arise due to random changes?
All you have is this post-hoc claim that the initial data is not random therefore the source of the data isn’t random. You have this initially not random set of data and then everything added to that is random. That’s your story?
Admit it. The data comes from a random generator. There’s no reason on evolution to expect the actual phylogenies that we see. All the arguments that you have in their favor are arguments that the data is not random.
Random changes to sequences are all you have, unless you accept design.
Mung:
I know that, Mung. My point, once again, is that you don’t know why common descent is such a solid conclusion:
You just don’t get it. You seem to be as lost as Sal and Bill.
Yes, let’s do that.
Here we go again:
Ahh so we’re back to your silly retort that because there are possible conditions under which the predictions change, that means there’s effectively no prediciton at all, it’s all up for grabs and we can’t know anything.
You do this “except when it doesn’t” line over and over again, and it never stops being unfathomably stupid.
Let’s see how we can also use it:
You should go to the doctor with your rash/broken leg/swelling in your armpit, he can fix it, except when he can’t.
Oh well then I guess you shouldn’t go to the doctor.
That’s where your thinking takes you.
Let’s try some more of these:
Remember to lock your bike or it will probably get stolen, except when it doesn’t.
Oh well then I guess you should just leave it unlocked.
Getting a good night’s sleep before a long drive helps prevent accidents, except when it doesn’t.
Mung has just proven sleep is superflous. Great.
You should study before a test or you’ll probably flunk it, except when you don’t.
Bah, homework. Who wants that anyway?
I trust that I have made it clear already, to any rational observer, why your constant usage of that shitty “..except when it doesn’t” line is really fucking dumb.
This idea you have that because there are some time exceptions to rules, means the rule is meaningless or usless, or can’t be systematically used to make predictions, is absolute fucking horseshit.
No, I’m saying something very different from you, and unlike the crap you spew what I say actually makes logical sense.
Oh look, you want to go over that dumb shit again too.
This nonsensical gibberish bears no relation to anything I’ve said.
Is Mung about to uncloak as a Poe? He can’t possibly be this confused after 15+ years. Can he?
Once more into the breach.
Mung, do you seriously think that if mutations are random, all genomes must be completely uncorrelated? The idea that parents pass genes to their offspring is utterly alien to you?