Re: Intelligent design vs. natural selection

Loren Haarsma (
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:18:25 -0400 (EDT)

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.

Ummm ... are there any empirical models we can use to
quantify "farfetched"?

That's not merely facetious. That question needs to be asked a lot more
often whenever evolution is discussed and words like "inevitable" or
"improbable" (or their synonyms) are invoked.

> It
> is hopefully that further analyses of existing sequence data and data to
> be collected will shed lights on the "common descent" vs "common design"
> alternatives.

Loren Haarsma