Intelligent Design and Common Descent

[Frankie (JoeG Sockpuppet)]

@swamidass

Isn’t the design argument much more appropriately expressed as astonishment at the beauty and complexity of life, as we all should be?

No, that is just a side effect.

[T_aquaticus]

@Frankie

Is it determined by the genome? If so how can we test that especially in the face of researchers who say genomes do not determine what develops. Genes influence and control development but do not determine what develops. Much like an assembly line doesn’t determine what they are assembling but each step controls and influences what will be assembled.

I think scientists agree that environment and genes interact to produce the final product. This doesn’t change the fact that humans look like humans because of their DNA, and humans and chimps look different because our DNA is different. Why do identical twins look identical? Because their DNA is identical.

@Frankie

If it is the genome and there is only a less than 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps, one would think we should be able to link the genetic differences to all of the observed anatomical and physiological differences. If we can’t then clearly genetic change is not the mechanism for diversification.

Perhaps a non-scientist would think that we should know what every gene does, but scientists don’t think that. Figuring out what each gene does is hard work. We are talking about thousands and thousands of genes interacting with one another to produce any given structure. It isn’t as simple as “gene A makes an eye” or “gene B makes an arm”. That’s not how it works.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Agauger

Evolutionists tend to think that function is easy to get from random sequence.

ID proponents think that it’s very difficult to get function from random sequence, or to put it another way, to acquire a new function by accident,

All this time I’ve been taught the process of evolution had a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random component (feedback from selection pressures). Now ID tells me evolution is completely random. Won’t all those evolutionary biologists who have been studying the subject for 150+ years be surprised!

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@Quest

If it were true it should be rather easy to pinpoint the anatomical differences between chimps and humans on the genetic level.

“Easy” is a relative term. Many anatomical differences between humans and chimps have indeed been linked to specific genetic differences. What else, outside of genetics/epigenetics, do think is responsible for the anatomical differences between humans and chimps?

@Quest

It should also be a pretty standard procedure to tweak the DNA to make chimps “intelligently evolve” some of the human anatomical features. It can’t be done.

I think you’re forgetting the ethics and logistics involved here. Chimps aren’t fruit flies or mice.

[Mung]

@evograd

Chimps aren’t fruit flies or mice.

Planet of the Flies?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Agauger

There is no chapter that argues for common descent that I know of. It’s an interesting question because there are arguments on both sides. If I had the time it would be worth the time to do a deep study of the arguments on both sides. Perhaps a really good book could be made of it.

@Agauger

How can you argue for an old earth but reject the idea of (or be uninterested in) God designing with old earth processes like evolution and its corollary, design through common descent?

Isnt Behe’s whole thrust that God didnt exercise a series of separate creations?.. that God DESIGNED the hard steps of evolution?

[Patrick]

@Frankie

Except there isn’t any evidence for that nor is there a way to test that claim.

How about smoking?

[T_aquaticus]

@Quest

Identical twins do not have identical DNA. It’s been known for more than 10 years. There are differences in CNV.

Those differences are so small as to be ignored. The reason that identical twins look like each other is that their genomes look like each other, wouldn’t you agree?

[T_aquaticus]

@Frankie

Except there isn’t any evidence for that nor is there a way to test that claim.

There is such a thing as teratogens which are chemicals that alter the development of an embryo. Some crocodilians and turtles have temperature dependent sex determination where the temp during development determins what gender the animals will be. There are plenty of examples of environment affecting development on top of mountains of evidence for phenotypic plasticity in adults.

@Frankie

Except that it isn’t. Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical | Scientific American

No one knows what makes a human a human beyond a human baby is born after a successful mating between a male human and female human.

The genomic differences are so small as to be ignored. We do know how embryonic development works, and it is a huge field of study in biology:

Evolutionary developmental biology

[T_aquaticus]

@Frankie

Natural selection is only non-random in a very trivial sense- that being that not all variations have the same chance of being eliminated.

That is hardly trivial.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Agauger

Evolutionists tend to think that function is easy to get from random sequence.

And quasi-randomness. That was the point of me bringing up our work, which could be described as barely-intelligent guessing. and your misreading of it.

@Agauger

The nylonase gene was a poster child for this attitude.

There’s a lot of other evidence, though, isn’t there?

@Agauger

They disagree with Doug Axe’s estimate for the rarity of functional protein folds in sequence space.

Yes, because it is based on a tiny sample, ignoring vast amounts of evidence (including ours), and questionable assumptions. That is not a solid foundation for a globally negative claim.

[T_aquaticus]

@Frankie

So what? Influencing and controlling are not equal to determining. The turtles remain turtles. The crocs remain crocs.

And they are crocs and turtles because of the DNA sequence in their genomes.

@Frankie

No one knows what makes a human a human beyond a human baby is born after a successful mating between a male human and female human.

Repeating yourself doesn’t make it true. You are free to remain ignorant of what biologists have learned, but don’t pretend that your ignorance is universal.

@Frankie

Very trivial. NS is as non-random as the spray pattern of a sawed-off shotgun shooting bird shot.

Again, repeating falsehoods does not make them true.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Joe Gallien AKA Frankie

Very trivial. NS is as non-random as the spray pattern of a sawed-off shotgun shooting bird shot.

Joe why are you back here posting as a sock “Frankie” when you were previously banned from Peaceful Science for posting obscenities? If the mods want to allow you back in as a sock that’s certainly their business but shouldn’t you be honest about it?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@gbrooks9

Isnt Behe’s whole thrust that God didnt exercise a series of separate creations?.. that God DESIGNED the hard steps of evolution?

No, Behe is really agnostic on common descent. He sees evidence for and against common descent and pretty much has the same position that Ann appears to.

The how of life’s diversity is an incredibly complex question.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@Frankie

No one knows what makes a human a human beyond a human baby is born after a successful mating between a male human and female human.

I recommend the book “Life Unfolding” by Jamie Davies. It’s an excellent tour of the processes of human embryological development from fertilised egg to fully developed baby.