Common Design

Status
Not open for further replies.

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Common shapes, common features, common characteristics, common physiologies, common organs and anatomical structures, common traits, and common genes all indicate and assure common design before any common descent, common origins and common ancestry can be assumed or inferred.

Instead of Intelligent Design, creationists should point to the COMMON DESIGN of species such as apes and humans as an explanation for their homologous morphologies. After all, it's only because of their common design that evolutionists are able to classify apes and humans in the same family tree to begin with.
 

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
Common shapes, common features, common characteristics, common physiologies, common organs and anatomical structures, common traits, and common genes all indicate and assure common design before any common descent, common origins and common ancestry can be assumed or inferred.

This of course ignores the evidence we find in the fossil record and genetic evidence that shows things that point away from common design to common descent.

You need to look at all the evidence John. Common descent is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that go way beyond common physiology.
 
Upvote 0

FreezBee

Veteran
Nov 1, 2005
1,306
44
Southern Copenhagen
✟1,704.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
john crawford said:
Common shapes, common features, common characteristics, common physiologies, common organs and anatomical structures, common traits, and common genes all indicate and assure common design before any common descent, common origins and common ancestry can be assumed or inferred.

Instead of Intelligent Design, creationists should point to the COMMON DESIGN of species such as apes and humans as an explanation for their homologous morphologies. After all, it's only because of their common design that evolutionists are able to classify apes and humans in the same family tree to begin with.

Ooh, that's Platonism you know :)


notto said:
This of course ignores the evidence we find in the fossil record and genetic evidence that shows things that point away from common design to common descent.

You need to look at all the evidence John. Common descent is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that go way beyond common physiology.

Yes, John, if you have a LOT of time, please give this page a read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
(Edward E. Max: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, May 5 2003)

The page is about non-functional genes, which are important in doscussions of ID versus ToE. An intelligent designer would by definition not leave non-functional junk in his creations, whereas evolution can work quite happily with that. And also, if two species have the same non-functional genes, that would be a very good reason to assume common origin - why would an intelligent designer make the same error more than once?


- FreezBee
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
This of course ignores the evidence we find in the fossil record and genetic evidence that shows things that point away from common design to common descent.
That's gibberish. Without the apparent mutual common design shared by two species, no implication, association or inference of common ancestry is possible.

Common descent is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that go way beyond common physiology.
Inferences or implications of common descent are totally dependent on the recognition of common physiological designs shared by two species. After all, if two species have nothing in common by way of structural or morphological design, there is nothing to associate or connect the two with a common ancestor.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
Inferences or implications of common descent are totally dependent on the recognition of common physiological designs shared by two species. After all, if two species have nothing in common by way of structural or morphological design, there is nothing to associate or connect the two with a common ancestor.

You didn't read the link did you. If you had, you would realize that this statement of yours is simplistic wishful thinking and that the evidence for common descent goes far beyond common design and structural morphology.

There are lots of things that connect species that make no sense when looked at through common design.

You can read about the evidence that shows your claims to be false here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Let us know when your done and if you have questions. Just don't ignore it, it won't go away no matter how many times you repeat that it doesn't exist.

I'm sure you will just repeat again your assertions, but unless you actually look at the evidence, don't try to fool us or yourself into accepting that you are making an informed statement.

'Common Design' makes no unique falsifiable observational statements. The theory of evolution and common ancestry makes several that certainly survive the ability to falsify them and provides more insite than vague referenes to 'common design'.

Can you name one unique falsifiable observable prediction that your 'common design' argument can hold that evolution hasn't already explained? I can name serveral that common design can't explain that evolution can. You should read the link - it would help you defeat the evil through informed discussion, not repetitive nonsense with no basis in reality. Don't let this argument become as absurd as your racism arguments.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
FreezBee said:
An intelligent designer would by definition not leave non-functional junk in his creations, whereas evolution can work quite happily with that.

The topic of the thread is COMMON DESIGN and implies nothing about intelligence other than it may be necessary to recognize common designs in the structures and biological functions of organisms.
And also, if two species have the same non-functional genes, that would be a very good reason to assume common origin -
If two species have the same non-functional genes, that would be a very good observation and confirmation of common design and function.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
[/font]
The topic of the thread is COMMON DESIGN and implies nothing about intelligence other than it may be necessary to recognize common designs in the structures and biological functions of organisms.

Well, if that's the case, then it really is pointless since we know that evolution through mutation and natural selection is a fairly good design algorithm. Nothing unique about your common design statements then other than pointing out the obvious.

If two species have the same non-functional genes, that would be a very good observation and confirmation of common design and function.


Yep, common design through the design algorithm of natural selection followed by speciation. Nicely done. You have pointed out an observation used to hint to common ancestry. Now, if you just look at the rest of the evidence, you will see the whole picture.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
You didn't read the link did you. If you had, you would realize that this statement of yours is simplistic wishful thinking and that the evidence for common descent goes far beyond common design and structural morphology.
Rather than wade through some abstract link you post, why don't you just give us a quote or two from it which support your contentions?

There are lots of things that connect species that make no sense when looked at through common design.
Why not mention one or two of those "things" instead of just rhetorically generalizing?

I'm sure you will just repeat again your assertions, but unless you actually look at the evidence, don't try to fool us or yourself into accepting that you are making an informed statement.
You haven't shown us any evidence other than posting a link to talkorigins. That's not 'evidence.' It's propaganda.

'Common Design' makes no falsifiable observational statements.
Nonsense. Observations of common design are either observable or "falsifiable." If two species share no observable common design in their function and structure, then claims of common origin or ancestry can neither be justified nor established.

Can you name one unique falsifiable observable prediction that your 'common design' argument can hold that evolution hasn't already explained?
You are talking in riddles here since associations based on common shapes, forms and designs are fundamental to evolutionist theory. No common design = no common ancestry.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
Rather than wade through some abstract link you post, why don't you just give us a quote or two from it which support your contentions?
I could ask the same of you John.
Why not mention one or two of those "things" instead of just rhetorically generalizing?
You are accusing another poster of rhetorically generalizing? That is kind of funny.
You haven't shown us any evidence other than posting a link to talkorigins. That's not 'evidence.' It's propaganda.
Likewise.
Nonsense. Observations of common design are either observable or "falsifiable." If two species share no observable common design in their function and structure, then claims of common origin or ancestry can neither be justified nor established.
Yet there are no two species that don't share at least one observable common design in their function or structure so this is not a problem.
You are talking in riddles here since associations based on common shapes, forms and designs are fundamental to evolutionist theory. No common design = no common ancestry.

Evolution predicts common design John. At least we can agree on that. After all, evolution is a way to design. Now, go an find an organism that isn't based on the same DNA or gene structure as every one we find, you might be on to something. Until you do, you have made no unique falsifiable predictions that differentiate your ramblings from evolution. Unfortunately for you, evolution explains much more than common design, it explains the differences, the distribution of the fossil record, and broken designs as well.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
Well, if that's the case, then it really is pointless since we know that evolution through mutation and natural selection is a fairly good design algorithm. Nothing unique about your common design statements then other than pointing out the obvious.
I'm glad you agree that the concept of common design is fundamental to Darwinist concepts of mutation and natural selection and that they are premised on it.
Yep, common design through the design algorithm of natural selection followed by speciation. Nicely done. You have pointed out an observation used to hint to common ancestry. Now, if you just look at the rest of the evidence, you will see the whole picture.
In order to "see" the whole picture of Darwinist theories of human evolution, one has to appreciate the role that scientific comprehension and admission of COMMON DESIGN plays in associating two species with the concept of mutual descent and common ancestral origins, and that without utilizing the scientific concept of COMMON DESIGN as being attributable to one, two or more species, no associations or inferences of common descent, ancestry or origins are possible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
I'm glad you agree that the concept of common design is fundamental to Darwinist concepts of mutation and natural selection and that they are premised on it.

In order to "see" the whole picture of Darwinist theories of human evolution, one has to appreciate the role that scientific comprehension and admission of COMMON DESIGN plays in associating two species with the concept of mutual descent and common ancestral origins, and that without utilizing the scientific concept of COMMON DESIGN as being attributable to one, two or more species, no associations or inferences of common descent, ancestry or origins are possible.

Yep, evolution predicts COMMON DESIGN. We agree. I fail to see of what value this observation is. It has been known for quite some time. When combined with other observations in genetics and the fossil record, the conclusion of common descent is obvious.

Have you looked at that evidence yet?
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
Yet there are no two species that don't share at least one observable common design in their function or structure so this is not a problem.
That's good. At least we agree on the fact that "there are no two species that don't share at least one observable common design in their function or structure."

That scientific fact bears repeating with a little emphasis on COMMON DESIGN.

"There are no two species that don't share at least one observable COMMON DESIGN in their function or structure." You read it first here, folks.
As written by notto.
Evolution predicts common design John.
Another Christian Forums first on evolutionist theory.
At least we can agree on that.
Yes, we do.
After all, evolution is a way to design.
Not only is evolution a way to design - it is based on the scientific concept of COMMON DESIGN.
Now, go an find an organism that isn't based on the same DNA or gene structure as every one we find, you might be on to something.
Who me? It's up to evolutionists to find an organism that isn't based on the same DNA or gene structure which every living organism is COMMONLY DESIGNED on.
Until you do, you have made no unique falsifiable predictions that differentiate your ramblings from evolution.
I've made the unique prediction that evolution is based on shared scientific concepts of, and beliefs in, COMMON DESIGN.
Unfortunately for you, evolution explains much more than common design, it explains the differences, the distribution of the fossil record, and broken designs as well.
The fact that you have proved that evolutionist theory acknowledges, verifies, explains and accounts for the existence of COMMON DESIGN is all that I am interested in for the time being.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
The fact that you have proved that evolutionist theory acknowledges, verifies, explains and accounts for the existence of COMMON DESIGN is all that I am interested in for the time being.

You should read Origin. It would have saved you the trouble.

Evolution has always predicted common design.

That you would think differently or think that you have come across some until now missed revelation shows that you really haven't studied up on the subject (or read the links provided which show exactly why evolution predicts common design).
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
Yep, evolution predicts COMMON DESIGN. We agree. I fail to see of what value this observation is. It has been known for quite some time. When combined with other observations in genetics and the fossil record, the conclusion of common descent is obvious.

Have you looked at that evidence yet?
Yes. All the genetic and fossil evidence in support of Darwinst theories of common descent proves that evolutionist theories are all basically premised on the scientific conclusion that all species share some COMMON DESIGN.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
You should read Origin. It would have saved you the trouble.

Evolution has always predicted common design.

That you would think differently or think that you have come across some until now missed revelation shows that you really haven't studied up on the subject (or read the links provided which show exactly why evolution predicts common design).
Well, it's hard to keep up with all the latest developments concerning DESIGN theory, you know, with all the intelligent designers taking their latest intelligent design theories to court.

I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact that COMMON DESIGN has already been predicted by Darwinists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
john crawford said:
Well, it's hard to keep up with all the latest developments concerning DESIGN theory, you know, with all the intelligent designers taking their latest intelligent design theories to court.
This thread isn't about intelligent design. There is no theory of intelligent design. Theories explain evidence through observable mechanisms and phenomena. Intelligent design doesn't do this, much like your thread, it simply makes assertions based on the obvious observation that stuff looks alike.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact that COMMON DESIGN has already been predicted by Darwinists.

They should, that is why they desperately try to find designs that evolution can't explain. Unfortunately, they have been fairly unsuccessful in both the lab (although they don't spend much time ther) and the courtroom and school board (where they seem to spend the bulk of their time for some reason).
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
8
83
usa
Visit site
✟3,958.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
notto said:
There is no theory of intelligent design.
There is a scientific theory of common descent and ancestry based on observations of COMMON DESIGN inherent in nested hierarchies of species though.

At least we agree on that.

Do evolutionists base their theories of observed COMMON DESIGN on assumptions and inferences of shared common descent and origins, or do they assume and infer COMMON DESIGN on the basis of observed common descent, shared ancestry and common origin of species?
 
Upvote 0

FreezBee

Veteran
Nov 1, 2005
1,306
44
Southern Copenhagen
✟1,704.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
john crawford said:
Do evolutionists base their theories of observed COMMON DESIGN on assumptions and inferences of shared common descent and origins, or do they assume and infer COMMON DESIGN on the basis of observed common descent, shared ancestry and common origin of species?

Things are more complicated than that. As well IDists as evolutionists recognize a distinction between homologies (same structure, different function, e.g. wings of a bird and forelegs of a quadruped) and analogies (different structure, same function, e.g. tailes of whales and fish). For the evolutionist homologies show adaptation to different ecological niches among species with common descent, and analogies show adaptation to a common ecological niche among species with different descent. So you can't just look at the morphology, you also need to look at interior details, and even biochemical details - which is not possible for fossils.

The main difference between ID and ToE is that within ID explanations for why the Creator chose to design as he supposedly did must be found outside of nature, in transcendental principles, whereas ToE explanations are limited to explanations relying on factors within nature itself, such as natural selection and mutations.


- FreezBee
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
shernren said:
Both of you, define common design. :p In particular, is the emphasis more on "common" or on "design"?

John laid it out well in his OP.

Common shapes, common features, common characteristics, common physiologies, common organs and anatomical structures, common traits, and common genes

Just as evolution predicts.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.