Common Design

[ChristIsTheWay]

What exactly is common design? I’ve heard this term used in discussions between creationists and evolutionists but I’m not really clear on what it is. Is it some kind of alternative to common descent as defined by evolutionary theory?

 

[rossum]

What exactly is common design? I’ve heard this term used in discussions between creationists and evolutionists but I’m not really clear on what it is. Is it some kind of alternative to common descent as defined by evolutionary theory?

It is easy to observe that some parts of diferent animals are basically the same. Common design and common descent are two different explanations for this observation.

All tetrapods (mammals, reptiles, birds) have similar eyes for example. Common descent says that the tetrapod eye was present in the original tetrapod and all its descendants got their eyes by descent from this original. Common design says that a designer (or designers) used the same blueprint for eyes when making tetrapods.

Both provide an explanation for the common presence of functional organs or systems in groups of related animals.

For myself I find common descent more persuasive because the designer(s) did not use the same design across different parts of the phylogenetic tree, (eg squid eyes), and because common descent is a better explanation for the presence of non-functional systems, (eg broken primate vitamin C pathway), distributed according to the phylogenetic tree.

rossum

 

[wildleafblower]

What exactly is common design? I’ve heard this term used in discussions between creationists and evolutionists but I’m not really clear on what it is. Is it some kind of alternative to common descent as defined by evolutionary theory?

Hi ChristIsTheWay,

I suggest using the website Talk.origins! Read about it here:

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive’s existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
talkorigins.org/
www.talkorigins.org/

Remember ChristIsTheWay, I’m a Roman Catholic woman who isn’t a creationist. I support *Talk.origins *because they don’t support ‘*creationist pseudosciences’ *which includes Intelligent Design, and neither does the Church: *Can. 279 §1. Even after ordination to the priesthood, clerics are to pursue sacred studies and are to strive after that solid doctrine founded in sacred scripture, handed on by their predecessors, and commonly accepted by the Church, as set out especially in the documents of councils and of the Roman Pontiffs. They are to avoid profane novelties and pseudo-science. *(Code of Canon Law, BOOK II. THE PEOPLE OF GOD LIBER II. DE POPULO DEI, PART I. THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL. TITLE III. SACRED MINISTERS OR CLERICS (Cann. 232 - 293), CHAPTER III. THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF CLERICS)

Learning is great fun so let’s go to the TalkOrigins Archive, An Index to Creationist Claims (1) to further explore your question. Scroll down to CI: Intelligent Design: CI141. **Similarities in DNA and anatomy are due to common design. You’ll be taken to a Creationists claim **(2):

Claim CI141: Similarities in anatomy and DNA sequences simply reflect the fact that the organisms had the same designer.
Source:
Sarfati, Jonathan, 2002. Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books, chap. 6. answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/RE2/chapter6.asp
Response:

1. Different forms also (it is claimed) come from the same designer, so similar forms are not evidence of a common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? “Intelligent design” theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.

1. There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common – the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).

1. The “form follows function” principle is the opposite from what we expect from known design.
   References:
2. Taylor, D. M, 2003. Alignment of Chimp_rp43-42n4 against human chromosome 15. www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv

Now, scroll down to the far right of the screen and click on Next Claim: CI141.1 (3)

Claim CI141.1:
Claim CI141.1:
Similarity of structures in different life forms reflects the fact that they were created for similar purposes. Different structures reflect different functions.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 70.
Response:
Actual known designers use similar forms for similar functions and different forms for different functions. In life, we often see different forms for similar functions (e.g., different designs for bird, bat, and pterodactyl wings) and similar forms for different functions (e.g., spider webs for trapping flying insects, reinforcing tunnels, protecting eggs, transferring sperm, ballooning, marking a trail, serving as a safety line after jumping to escape a threat, and detecting motion).

A special thanks to Mark Isaak from TalkOrigins for helping us.

I love science!

1. talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
   An Index to Creationist Claims
2. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html
   CI141: Similar form, similar designer?
3. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141_1.html
   CI141.1: Form following function

 

[reggieM]

This new book gives some good insight about the scientific support for common design:

cellsdesign.com/

The author Dr. Fazale Rana is a biochemist.

From the site: Several articles by Dr. Rana have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Biochemistry, Applied Spectroscopy, FEBS Letters, Journal of Microbiological Methods, and Journal of Chemical Education. Recently he published an article on cell membrane origins in Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. He has delivered numerous presentations at international scientific meetings. Rana also holds one patent and co-wrote a chapter on antimicrobial peptides for Biological and Synthetic Membranes.

 

[reggieM]

For myself I find common descent more persuasive because the designer(s) did not use the same design across different parts of the phylogenetic tree, (eg squid eyes),

I could fully accept that if the expectation is that the designer had to, or would only use the same design for the same functions. One might say that there are eyes in various animals that operate differently. But one could also point out that that all of those animals have eyes (some, it has been claimed, evolved independently on parallel-separate evolutionary paths).

and because common descent is a better explanation for the presence of non-functional systems, (eg broken primate vitamin C pathway), distributed according to the phylogenetic tree.

My concern with that is whether we fully understand what is meant by “non-functional systems”. This proved to be a concern with what was called junk-DNA.