Talk:Common descent

	This evolution related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Cover Story This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page. Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies. Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Almost the best of RW

Not yet complete.

ID and Common Descent

The position of ID regarding common descent is mischaracterized. The article says:

"Intelligent design proponents may accept some aspects of common descent, as long as they are allowed to claim that the "designer" interfered with the genes and mutations along the way, then deferring what's not explained to "we don't know" what happened"

This is incorrect. Many ID'ers (such as Behe) accept a fully mechanistic common descent. What is claimed is that the information necessary to produce later evolution was front-loaded either into the original organism or into the big bang. The difference between this and, say, a biologos perspective, is that in this view the origin of life starts information-rich, while in a biologos perspective life starts information-poor. For a fuller explanation, see http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-common-descent/

Perhaps a better wording would be:

"Intelligent design proponents may or or may not accept common descent, though they usually postulate that the information necessary for diversification was either there from the beginning or continually added through the history of life."

Why was that there?

I added a reference which has been deleted with the question as to why it was there: And Finally the Hounding Duck Can Rest by Carl Zimmer It is there because it is an example of how evolution-deniers make a point of not answering questions. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So why post it under the section title "evidence against common descent"? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a documented case of there being no evidence against common descent. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

2013 Dead link Project

Okay, I'm going to work on this today, and see if I can fix all the links. As I am not a scientist and this is a Cover Story Article, I would appreciate it if someone more qualified double-checked my links. Alternatively, I'd be grateful if someone more qualified handled it, and we could be confident it was done right the first time. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ook ook

The Primate Origins of Human Nature, has v. good summary on evolutionary constraints. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hillis Plot

I find that diagram a bit confusing in terms of what it is showing. Does anybody else agree with me? Benn (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)