The alternative without God is we don’t know.
If I am building a computer I would not start with a calculator I would start from scratch. If was building a new operating system for a computer I may start with the same computer. It all depends how different the two organisms are.
This is not something you have ever mentioned before. But at least we are agreed that the evidence for common descent rules out separate creation. Without God, no separate creation. With God, no need for it.
So isn’t it odd that the living equivalents are built from previous models? Again you handily refute your own hypotheses.
John, the problem is that the implication is no involvement from God. This is the game of smoke and mirrors that is being played.
God used common descent to some degree to create what we are observing. The degree to which he used it is unknown at this point. A single starting point is not well supported by the observations where we see dramatic changes. There is no reason for a designer to carry the baggage of the older design.
They may use similar components but the differences are what you need to analyze to access if starting from scratch was the more likely strategy.
You are very bad at coherent reply. One problem for you is that you often fail to specify referents. For example, you mention “the problem”. But the problem with what? You don’t say. And again, the implication of what? Also, you entirely dodge the point.
And yet, he seems to do that regularly. You seem to be arguing against design without realizing it.
When you do analyze such things, you find that starting from scratch is not the more likely strategy. Eukaryotes, to use your example, seem to be made from three prokaryotes combined: Two eubacteria and a lokiarchaeote. Not starting from scratch at all.
The basic architecture of the eukaryotic cell is completely different then the prior organisms.
Add to this image the spliceosome, the nuclear pore complex and chromosome structure.
That’s not evidence against common ancestry, which is supposed to be the point of this thread. If common ancestry is true, that is compatible with both guided and unguided mechanisms. So arguing against unguided mechanisms as an argument against common ancestry is a non sequitur, yet that seems to be all that you’re doing (and, for that matter, all that most ID/creationists are doing).
There’s no “smoke and mirrors.” You’re just misunderstanding the basic principles of your own argument.
Or a eubacterium, a lokiarchaeote, and a DNA virus:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168170220310753
No it isn’t. Why would you say so?
Not if you account for the probable two rounds of endosymbiosis in the early history of eukaryotic cells. There is quite a lot of evidence for that, and when you account for it, there aren’t really any major structural changes that would have needed to occur for the first eukaryote to evolve.
Hi Andrew
Endosymbiosis even if it were true does not account for many of the changes. Nuclear splicing, Golgi, endoplasmic reticulum, chromosome structure, etc. When you get to multicellular organisms now you need to explain the ubiquitin system. When you get to land animals you need to add processing air and mobility, when you get to flight you need to explain the origin of the flight feather and many other complex cellular changes. New architecture means an original design.
Good luck with all this 
In your other argument about guided or unguided what you and John lack is a clear hypothesis. The problem is the mechanism (reproduction) you are proposing is only a partial explanation. There is no clear explanation for the differences.
That’s wrong. Common ancestry explains the pattern of similarities and differences.
No theory in science would make sense if you invoke supernatural magic that just happens to mimic the proposed natural process. Germ theory? Throw that out the window. It’s just magical demons that produce ill health in a way that is indistinguishable from an infection of microorganisms.
Please show us the ancestors of eukaryotic cells and how they were radically different.
So your argument is, “Wow, look at all this cool stuff! It can’t have evolved because it just seems too complicated!”
Ever heard of the argument from incredulity fallacy?
You haven’t provided a single quantitative reason for me to think that these features can’t have evolved, since the high proportion of functionality within protein sequence space – and the fact that we’ve observed new proteins evolve in the last century – indicates to me that they can evolve.
And yet again, this is not in any way an argument against common ancestry. This is an argument against unguided evolution.
Yes but you are arguing against yourself at this point. This is called a straw man fallacy,
I showed you clear differences that is strong evidence of independent design.
You have very successfully picked up many of the evolutionists fallacious talking points which indicates bias. I am more interested in your original thinking independent of both sides of the argument.
Going to break for the day. Talk tomorrow.
I just want to interject in this thread to highlight the article that @misterme987 linked above. Everyone interested in biology should give it a look, it is truly fascinating!
No, you just listed a bunch of features of different organisms and said “There is no clear explanation for the differences.” You did not provide any actual reason for me to believe that these features cannot have evolved, just asserted that they could not have based on your own incredulity. Which is why that was an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Also, these features are not evidence of “independent design.” At most, they are evidence that an intelligence was involved in guiding their creation. This is entirely compatible with common ancestry, so you still have not provided a single argument bearing directly on common ancestry. If you want to convince me that common ancestry is wrong, you’ll have to give me some solid evidence that directly bears upon the common ancestry debate, rather than making unsupported assertions that aren’t even relevant to common ancestry.
Evolution produces differences, so how can differences be evidence against evolution?
No it isn’t. Evolution is a process where one thing changes into another, different thing.
In common descent, different things are related and evolved from common ancestors that were non-identical to both.
Finding different things then can’t be evidence favoring “independent design”, nor can it be evidence against common descent, nor against evolution.
I will note that you have no hypothesis at all.
Word salad, I’m afraid.
Not relevant to the question of common descent. It’s the pattern of differences, not the differences themselves, that are relevant.
Let’s try this one more time. Common descent doesn’t explain gene gain. Common descent doesn’t explain gene loss. Common descent explains why the pattern of gene gain and loss fits a nested hierarchy. Separate creation fails to explain any of that. Any questions, Bill?
Did you mean common descent does explain gene gain and loss?
