Common Descent- Why Explain the Differences?

As I have stated in recent posts it appears that the "evidence" for Common Descent can also be used to support competeing hypotheses like convergence and Common Design. So in order for Common Descent to separate itself from Common Design and convergence it needs to explain the differences. It pretends to do so with the "decent with modification" motif, but that only explains minor variations of an already existing body plan. And from observations we know that those variations oscillate- the beak of the finch is a prime example. (see also Wobbling Stability) The only way around that observed wobbling stability is to throw eons of time at any (alleged) issue. So the current evolutionary formula can be summed up as: Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations = Common Descent Yet all we know about organisms and their body plans is summed up nicely: What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following: Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

That is where the "magical mystery mutations" come in. No one has ever seen them and no one knows exactly what they can do - that is the mutations which allegedly caused the transformations required. Subnstitute a HOX gene from a mouse into a fly and the fly develops fly eyes. Similar gene in a dissimilar organism points to a Common Design. Did the alleged common ancestor of the mouse and fly even have eyes? With imagination I guess any and everything is not only possible but likely. I would even say that Common Descent, as in all of the diversity of living organisms owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested. To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that. For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate. However that is about the most stupid way to present a case. But I digress. So here is the chance for any and all evos to ante up. The following site demonstrates the physiological and anatomical differences between humans & chimps. Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the difference and you may be on to something scientific: Chimps become Human? For until you do so you either have to admit that yours is a position based on faith or that convergence and Common Design deserve the same status as Common Descent. Or just continue to expose the deception you are trying to pass off as "science". And just so I am clear- Despite Alan Fox's lies to the contrary, I am very interested in the data. I have looked but I cannot find it. I would really appreciate anything you can offer- data wise- so we can scrutinize it together. However I am sure, as with all other attempts, I will be met with distractions, nonsense and personal jabs. And that is the true depth and scope of Common Descent via some evolutionary process. So I thank you in advance...