Common Design

[john crawford]

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).

Of course, but it is only by first observing, recognizing and distinguishing common designs in biological structures and functions that we are able to establish whether those common features and designs are homologous or analogous.

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.

Of course, but the observable presence or absence of commonly designed structural or functional features are necessary to enable us to establish or distinguish between homologies and analogies in the first place. In other words, the presence or absence of the recognizably shared commonality of physical characteristics in two or more species is the fundamental premise upon which concepts and theories of common descent, ancestry or origins are based.

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.

Yes, but as you say, observable evidence of COMMON DESIGN in nature is scientifically explainable in evolutionary theory by "relying on factors within nature itself, such as natural selection and mutations."

Biological organisms don't of necessity need to be intelligently designed in order for scientists to physically observe, recognize and distinguish common biological designs inherent in the physiological structures and functions of two or more species of living things.

 

[john crawford]

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.

Yes, those qualities and properties seem to constitute a fairly inclusive and comprehensive scientific categorization of what may be commonly considered and defined as indicative and descriptive of COMMON DESIGN.

I couldn't have found a better dictionary or scientific definition of the meaning of the term, COMMON DESIGN myself, since it doesn't seem to stress either commonality over design, or design over commonality, but simply describes what must be inherently obvious and intitially apparent in biological organisms in order to further ascribe such concepts and properties as common descent, ancestry or origin to two or more species in the first place.

 

[shernren]

but are those common DESIGN? or simply common features?

*scritch*

 

[john crawford]

but are those common DESIGN? or simply common features?

*scritch*

Organisms which share similar attributes, morphologies, shapes, characteristics, organs, anatomies, physical structures, functions, genes and/or other traits and features, may be said to have a biologically COMMON DESIGN . Recognition of the COMMON DESIGN of various species enables us to taxonomically separate and classify those species with COMMON DESIGNS in their appropriate nested hierarchies on phylogenetic trees.

 

[WAB]

My, my, my... have not counted the number of times the term "COMMON DESIGN" has appeared in this neck of the woods, but a lot. Yet there appears to be a dearth of those who might come to the logical conclusion that DESIGN INFERS A DESIGNER!

 

[shernren]

Exactly. I was just about to wonder if the use of the term "common DESIGN" was already unfairly loaded, but you beat me to it. The issue is not in the word "common" but in the word "design": how do you know when something is designed?

 

[WAB]

Exactly. I was just about to wonder if the use of the term "common DESIGN" was already unfairly loaded, but you beat me to it. The issue is not in the word "common" but in the word "design": how do you know when something is designed?

By accepting the Word of the Designer!

 

[The Lady Kate]

My, my, my... have not counted the number of times the term "COMMON DESIGN" has appeared in this neck of the woods, but a lot. Yet there appears to be a dearth of those who might come to the logical conclusion that DESIGN INFERS A DESIGNER!

Because it's not a logical conclusion.... at least not the conclusion you want...

Design requires a designer... but not necessarily an intelligent designer.

There's no higher intelligence at work carving snowflakes... their crystalling structure is the product of an unintelligent process.

And btw.... typing in all caps is getting annyoing.... no need to encourage it, particularly when it's not necessary.

 

[notto]

Because it's not a logical conclusion....

Oh come on Kate, its a perfectly circular logical conclusion.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Oh come on Kate, its a perfectly circular logical conclusion.

and it's making me dizzy.

 

[WAB]

Because it's not a logical conclusion.... at least not the conclusion you want...

Design requires a designer... but not necessarily an intelligent designer.

There's no higher intelligence at work carving snowflakes... their crystalling structure is the product of an unintelligent process.

And btw.... typing in all caps is getting annyoing.... no need to encourage it, particularly when it's not necessary.

It is indeed a logical conclusion when the intricacy of the designed object is undeniable. Again, find some info. on the design of the eye, and see if you can then postulate an UN-intelligent Designer.

I rather think that the content of the post is what is annoying to you rather than the caps. Did you criticize the original posts for using caps? I was just quoting as the posts presented them..... "COMMON DESIGN".

 

[The Lady Kate]

It is indeed a logical conclusion when the intricacy of the designed object is undeniable. Again, find some info. on the design of the eye, and see if you can then postulate an UN-intelligent Designer.

Piece of cake.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

I rather think that the content of the post is what is annoying to you rather than the caps. Did you criticize the original posts for using caps? I was just quoting as the posts presented them..... "COMMON DESIGN".

The OP was getting a bit grating.... and there's certainly no reason to expand on it.

 

[john crawford]

My, my, my... have not counted the number of times the term "COMMON DESIGN" has appeared in this neck of the woods, but a lot. Yet there appears to be a dearth of those who might come to the logical conclusion that DESIGN INFERS A DESIGNER!

Yes, 'common design' equally infers common origins, common descent, common ancestry and common designs amongst organisms such as human and non-human apes.

If it wasn't for shared common traits and common anatomical designs and commonly designed organs, how else could we classify human and non-human species in the same common phylogenetic taxon in the first place?

 

[shernren]

The issue is not the existence of shared traits but the origin of shared traits.

 

[john crawford]

The issue is not the existence of shared traits but the origin of shared traits.

The "issue" on this thread is how the existence of shared traits is evidence of common design in organisms.

Common ancestry, descent and origin may only be imputed and inferred on the basis of common biolological design since organisms may not be associated with each other on the basis of their asymmetrical design.
http://www.planemath.com/activities/pmenterprises/airfoils/airfoils7.html

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/biology/bdol98/skill_handbook/tc.html

 

[shernren]

You lost me there, john, either i'm too stupid or i'm too smart

In what sense do organisms have "asymmetrical design",

how does that force them to "not be associated with each other",

and how does that show that "Common ancestry, descent and origin may only be imputed and inferred on the basis of common biological design"?

Until you can explain further, it remains a non sequitur to me.

 

[john crawford]

The issue is not in the word "common" but in the word "design": how do you know when something is designed?

When you recognize the shared common shapes, patterns, structures, functions and other features inherent in, and which constitute, the design.

 

[john crawford]

By accepting the Word of the Designer!

Identification of the designer is secondary to, and not intrinisically bound up with, the recognition and identification of a particular and peculiar design.

For instance, a hexagonal design may be recognized as common to all snowflakes without imputing or inferring any other designer than naturally occurring crystalization processes. Likewise is the shared common design of apes and humans recognizable by their common physiological traits, structures and functions. Although such similarities are usually referred to as homologies by evolutionists, there is no reason not to acknowledge and refer to such homologies as evidence of a common design or pattern within similar hierarchically nested organisms.

Without the recognition and identification of common designs within organisms, no phylogenetic trees may be intelligently designed.

 

[shernren]

So basically an element is considered "design" if it is shared and common? Help. I really don't get this. Sample question: if painter X has only painted one painting before, how would you be able to determine whether the painting is "designed" or not?

 

[FreezBee]

So basically an element is considered "design" if it is shared and common? Help. I really don't get this. Sample question: if painter X has only painted one painting before, how would you be able to determine whether the painting is "designed" or not?

Though the answer would probably be - in comparison with the paintings of others. Also some people don't consider all paintings designed - only those that these same people can make sense of! What the difference between a painting and a canvas with apparently random blobs of color on it?

- FreezBee