# Uncommon or Common Descent?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [July 23, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776 "2018-07-23T19:07:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<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:** [July 24, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776/11 "2018-07-24T22:04:04Z")

</div>

It seems there was a detour and your were [Missing the Point on Ewert - #19](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/missing-the-point-on-ewert/799/19). I moved those comments to another thread and closed it.

* * *

> [@JoeG](#):
>
> Common Design explain s the data you presented. Common Descent doesn’t even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

@JoeG I’m sorry the sources you’ve relied have not been trustworthy. I agree with Winston on this, not you. Did you read his comments yet? [Winston Ewert: The Dependency Graph of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/winston-ewert-the-dependency-graph-of-life/728). He is an excellent scientist in many ways. He writes:

> [@Winston Ewert: The Dependency Graph of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/winston-ewert-the-dependency-graph-of-life/728/10):
>
> Josh, thanks for your respect and acknowledgment of me **actually trying to a build a scientific model**. Although I’m sure we disagree on a lot, **we probably largely agree as to this being a problematic deficit in the current state of intelligent design**. In fact that respect you are showing is the big reason I’m breaking my general rule and engaging in this thread. Let’s hope I don’t regret that!

The “this” he is talking about is the lack of ID models. @pnelson (and ID fellow) has commented on this too. He is concerned that when this is not acknowledged in ID that it stifles innovation. People think there is a design model, when there is not, so they don’t work on one. I’ve agreed with them on this, and this is why @Winston_Ewert’s and @Agauger’s work is so significant.

Out of respect for them, I need to you be more respectful of their efforts. Rather than pretending that they are working on an already solved problem, give them space to do their work. Follow it closely and encourage them. Understand them. Do not undermine @Winston_Ewert and disrespect him by pretending all his hard work has been towards a solved problem. That is not true. If he is successful, it will be ground breaking for ID.

You do not have to agree with Common Descent. Maybe science is wrong here. Whatever the case, no one here cares what we personally believe in the privacy of our own hearts.

So it is entirely accurate that the patterns I presented do not have an ID model that explains them, **_except common descent._** Remember, as every ID leader will tell you **_Common Descent is a design principle too_**. That might have been part of the story, one of the design principles, of how God created life.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> **Perhaps there is another principle can explain these patterns, but no one has produced one.** It is not enough to say that “God could have created things this way.” I agree. I think He created us too, just this way. However, He chose to create us in a manner perfectly explained by common descent. In science, we need a better mathematical and quantitative explanation of all this data before we leave common descent.

If I am wrong, show me the mathematically theory that explains that pattern. There is none. Everyone knows this. That is why science is currently solidly behind common descent. If you want that to change, at _minimum_ you must produce a better mathematical theory. That is what @Winston_Ewert, to his credit. Show some respect. Stop undermining his work.

That is also why the last part of your comment is a non-sequitor and totally irrelevant.

> [@JoeG](#):
>
> What Common Descent requires is a mechanism capable of explaining the anatomical and physiological differences observed between two allegedly related species such as chimps and humans. Right now we don’t have that. So right now the best we can do is say “we don’t know”. That is the only honest scientific answer to the question.

I’ve heard you say that a million times. It is false. Rather than distracting from the progress being made by real scientists, follow the wise ID leaders here like @pnelson and @Winston_Ewert. I will be fair to them. I will give them a hearing. If they are right, I’ll make it known.

* * *

As for @T.j_Runyon? He is new as a moderator. You can try pulling his chain now and then. At some point he learn to only pay attention when you are being kind. As for @Winston_Ewert, however, leave him alone. He is not here. Is our guest. I have too much respect for his work for you to disrespect it like this. 😄

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776)._