Re: Intelligent design vs. natural selection
David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:55:24 -0400>> On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Pattle Pun wrote:
>> > One of the ways by which intelligent design theory can be tested is by
>> > way of following the patterns of sequence homologies of macromolecules
>> > that cannot be accommodated by the the monophyletic assumption of the
>> > comment descent hypothesis, but rather by a polyphyletic lineage with a
>> > common pattern (or "design"). Preliminary evidence has already indicated
>> > that the three distinct "urkingdoms" of Archea, Bacteria, and Eukarya have
>> > unique patterns within themselves such as rRNA, RNA polymerase, Cell
>> > Walls, Lipid compositions, and translational machineries. Current models
>> > of forcing these data into monophyletic interpretation are farfetched.
Phylogenies connecting all three urkingdoms have been made based on
rRNA, tRNA, heat shock proteins, and several other molecules. The split
between the three is probably over 3.5 billion years ago, so large
differences are to be expected. Gene transfers seem to have occurred in
many cases, so these phylogenies will not always agree with each other, but
the basic biochemical similarities among all living organisms seem best
explained by the suggestion that God created them all from a common
ancestor-the commonalities are greater than is necessary for function.
However, multiple origins of life are possible under a naturalistic
scenario, so this would not unambiguously test ID versus "methodological
naturalism".
David Campbell