Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, December 18, 2017

Common Design with respect to Biology

Common design. We see it and have experiences with it every day. Automobiles display varying degrees of common design. Personal computers display varying degrees of common design. Houses built to the same building codes display varying degrees of common design. The lost is very long,

With respect to biology Linnaean Classification lays out the pattern of common design expected. Linne based his scheme on the basis of "archetypes" with common design being part of that:

“One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.”-- Ernst Mayr 
Simpson echoed those comments:

“From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.” 
Common design is inherent in the concept of "archetypes".

To me it seems stupid to redesign a gene that will encode for the same protein for every different organism. To me it seems like a brilliant idea to be able to reuse similar sequences in organisms.


Post a Comment

<< Home