# A Test of Common Descent vs. Common Function

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-test-of-common-descent-vs-common-function/1514>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Created:** [September 6, 2018, 2:22am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-test-of-common-descent-vs-common-function/1514 "2018-09-06T02:22:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 2:50am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-test-of-common-descent-vs-common-function/1514/6 "2018-09-06T02:50:24Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> This is one test of the superiority of phylogenetic hypotheses to separate creation/function hypotheses. It’s far from the only one, but it’s novel, and consilience is always nice.

It does not appear to suffer from the same pitfalls as the tests that are actually billed as common descent tests. This one, for example, seems to fail ([Beyond Reasonable Doubt? A Test for Common Ancestry](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/beyond-reasonable-doubt-a-test-for-common-ancestry/1029)).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-test-of-common-descent-vs-common-function/1514)._