This is based on a discussion started in another thread. Consider the observation documented in the figure below:
Let’s compare two attempts to explain this observation: The standard current evolutionary account, and that suggested by Intelligent Design proponent Michael Denton.
According to evolutionary theory, the homologous structures depicted above are evidence of common descent, and are accounted for by it. All forelimbs are derived from a common ancestor whose forelimbs showed the basic structure in common between the four examples above, and the differences between the examples are accounted for by subsequent alterations, thru mutations, in the specific forms and proportions of the components of the limbs. That is to say the reason these forelimbs all show the same basic pentadactyl structure is that they were all descended from a pentadactyl ancestor, and developmental constraints (which themselves are merely historically contingent and not functional in origin) explain why the pentadactyl trait has been retained in multiple lineages over time.
It is important to note that, according to the above account, there is no functional explanation for the observed homology. Rather, this is a result of contingent factors that occurred in the history of the evolution of life on earth. If the “tape” of life were rewound to sometime before the existence of vertebrate organism, there is no reason to believe that anything resembling vertebrates with pentadactyl forelimbs would again arise.
Denton’s account starts from the (correct) premise that this homology has no functional explanation. He proposes a theoretical frameworks that he calls “structuralism”. According to this idea, the “homology” between those four limbs is an expression of deep, fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. His position is that, if life had arisen on other planets, we would still find vertebrates with pentadactyl limbs, for the much the same reasons we would expect to find quartz crystals under the geological conditions that produce them here on earth.
Now, this is entirely consistent with common ancestry in the broad sense. However, I do not see how common ancestry is a necessary or even contributory aspect of Denton’s account. Under his model, bats, cats, whales and humans could have been created by God initially as unicellular organisms. They could then continue to “evolve” over millions years into the forms that are determined by the underlying structural laws that Denton invokes, eventually arising with the “homologous” pentadactyl forelimbs that we now observe. Common ancestry would not be involved at any point.
I base this account of Denton’s views on the article linked below, as well as some of his videos produced by the DI.
https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/69
My concern is that his argument made there is entirely against a Darwinian functionalist version of “evolution” which, as has already been explained, is not part of the current understanding of how such homologies arise according to evolutionary theory. IOW, he is committing a strawman fallacy.
However, I readily admit that I have not read any of his books nor am I familiar with his thinking beyond what is explained in the sources listed above.
So I wonder if anyone who is more familiar with his work can give examples of how he argues against the standard evolutionary model that I have summarized above. If it turns out he has not done so, then we will have to conclude that he does not understand current evolutionary theory, and that his arguments are of little or no scientific value as a result. On the other hand, if he has made arguments against the current model, we can discuss them here and see if they hold up to scrutiny.