Responding to a Biology Professor: Common Descent is a Fact! The Only Disagreement is Over the Mechanism

Here's a discussion I had with a Biology Professor who specialises in Palaeontology.

This was the contention she put to me:

"The only disagreement in the scientific literature is about the mechanism, and that is simply healthy scientific discourse, which changes as the available information changes. There is zero disagreement about the reality of common descent".

Before I continue I will note that she wrote this as well in that same post:

"Neo-Darwinism has been dead for half a century."

This is significant because the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is still currently accepted by most scientists. Yet while she evidently disagrees, she believes that some as yet unknown evolutionary mechanism can account for the complexity of life.

I wrote (in response to her):

""The only disagreement [over common descent] in the scientific literature is about the mechanism". 

Shouldn't the mechanism be the thing that proves common descent? Otherwise common descent would be presupposed without any explanatory power to show how it is possible. 

So basically the fossil record, which contradicts Darwinism (and where any contradictions are explained away or are asserted to prove it anyway) actually proves Darwinism?


Also, Palaeontology is really good for coming up with up nice stories about how things could be, but it is unsupportable without an adequate mechanism (which you've presupposed exists). You need a mechanism FIRST, only then would Palaeontology back up Darwinism. The fossil record also isn't convincing because it does not contradict ID. So without an adequate mechanism it is totally arbirtrary to say it proves Darwinism.


Oh and if you believe the similarity of DNA between different animals proves molecules to man evolution - it is also a presupposition because no mechanism is adequate to prove that it indicates common descent (is possible). Similarity of DNA likewise doesn't contradict an ID perspective so using it as evidence is a mere assertion.


(This is only my personal viewpoint in looking at the evidence - other ID theorists such as Michael Behe find Common Descent plausible - I do not.)"  

This was her response (note: she made some irrelevant points which I have excised):

""Shouldn't the mechanism be the thing that proves common descent?" 

No. The Germ Theory of Disease proposed that many diseases are caused by microorganisms. We still don't know the precise mechanism in all cases, but nobody doubts the veracity of the theory. 

"Oh and if you believe the similarity of DNA between different animals proves evolution - it is also a presupposition because no mechanism is adequate to prove that it indicates common descent" 

Hm --- tell that to the forensic police departments all over the world. If DNA similarities do not show relationship, then we're all in trouble, because there would be no evidence that children were related to their parents. 

Tell us, what *does* similarity of DNA show if not relationship? If it's simply random, then why isn't my great great great great great great great grandfather a cactus rather than Charlemagne?"

- Note the classic bait-ands-switch technique!


And my response:

"All your examples use minor change within species as a bait-and-switch to explain all the supposed change from molecules to man. This is not an evidence-based comparison. The mechanism is known and sufficient to explain change within species. So how could  you use known mechanisms as evidence for something that defies explanation through those same mechanisms? 

I am talking about common descent, not change within species or DNA similarity within a species. Using germ theory is a false comparison as, for example, you assert that the mechanism is only not known "in all cases". Where as the mechanism for explaining molecules to man evolution is not known at all. ID constitutes a better explanation than a Neo-Darwinian mechanism. Hence why there is no need to resort to a hypothetical mechanism."

Note: I did not respond to this point - "Tell us, what *does* similarity of DNA show if not relationship?" - because in passing it appeared to be just an assumption. But I will address it for any who want clarification. The similarity can easily be attributed to Common Design. Just like how a car designer might create different car models but they are still building on a basic design template.

Further, the evidence shows that there are many unique genes that cannot be explained through the possibility of common descent. A group of German scientists recently examined the gene sequences of 16 different Cyanobacterial strains in an effort to discern all the distinct kinds of genes these strains carry. They found that they do share a common set of 660 genes (not identical genes but similar enough to encode for proteins). But surprisingly they found that nearly 14,000 genes are unique to individual strains (at an average of 869 unique genes per strain)!* These findings indicate that those bacterial strains are more genetically different than alike, despite their overall external similarities. This flies in the face of what you would expect from common descent.


Stephen Meyer, writing in Darwin's Doubt sums up my argument nicely when he says:

"The Darwinian formulation of evolutionary theory in opposition to the design hypothesis, coupled with the inability of Neo-Darwinian and other materialistic theories to account for the salient appearances of design, would seem to logically reopen the possibility of actual (as opposed to apparent) design in the history of animal life" 

Another commenter had this interesting point to say:

"How can one understand Darwinian logical fallacies?
Evolution is an anti-science theory based on a lie stating that life from non-life is possible.  

There's NO observational or empirical data, NO rigid mathematical model [and] NO large scale computer simulation or digital life research program confirming evolution. There's NO known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code resulting in speciation."

Random final addition - Why ID is Theoretically Falsifiable:

ID's claim that intelligence is the only thing capable of producing specified complexity is also technically falsifiable because if an undirected natural cause were capable of producing specified complexity then its claims would be disproven.



Fin.



Quote from: Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

* C. Beck et al., "The Diversity of Cyanobacterial Metabolism: Genome Analysis of Multiple Phototrophic Microorganisms," BMC genomics 13 (2012): 56.