I have decided to hold off on updating my theory to find out whether random mutations automatically precludes Universal descent. I know natural selection is not necessarily synonymous with common descent but I thought it was different when it comes to the randomness of mutations.
I argued before that you cannot separate random mutations from common descent, Then, I pointed out that a biologist named Gert Korthof suggested the same thing in his book Why Intelligent Design Fails :
"Common descent of life means that all life on Earth is physically, historically, and genetically connected. Common descent of life means that life is one unbroken chain of ancestors and descendants. Common descent of life means that every organism inherited all its genes from the previous generation (with slight modifications). And that includes irreducibly complex systems. Every supernatural intervention is a violation of common descent, because it means that a new irreducibly complex system in the first individual showing it was not inherited from its parents. It would be unjustified to say, âI inherited all my chromosomes from my parents, except an irreducibly complex system on chromosome X, which has a supernatural origin.â
Common Descent: Itâs All or Nothing (updated chapter) (wasdarwinw
However, in my discussions with @John_Harshman, he disagreed with him and made some comments arguing otherwise. This has prompted me to finally end the previous topic since it is a big reason why the common design model is supposed to be potentially useful and ,thus, continuing the conversation on the topic seemed pointless. More importantly, it has got me wondering whether this was more his opinion than fact.
Iâve done research on it and I found this article that seems to suggest Gert is right:
"do non-random mutations affect phylogenetic analysis? âŚ
âŚThis paper advances a new hypothesis to understand alignment of mutations in homologous DNA sequences of separated species as the result of a common mechanism operating in similar genomes, and provides the first biological evidence that the location where a mutation will occur and the type of mutation (transition or transversion) are largely predetermined. The consequence is that we may not be able to discriminate between common descent and this common mechanism."
(PDF) Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism? (researchgate.net)
Remarkably, there does not seem to be a lot of information or discussion on the subject outside this article.
So my question to all the biologists here is⌠Do you agree with @John_Harshman over Gert? If so, would you say there is a consensus on the matter that agrees with John?