Commonality versus Proven Relationship  in Evolution;

This is a work in progress.

One of the main things that macro Darwinists cite as supposed proof of Darwinian evolution as an explanation for all of life, is the common elements/components/chemistry, processes, and morphology found in all forms of life.  Darwinists propose that this demonstrates that one life form "must" have come from another as a descendent.  That position is not the only possibility; it is merely an assumption and reasoning based on assumptions and is, at best, questionable reasoning if it is claimed to be a major part of a proof.   The nature of alleged transitional forms (about 1/5th the way down the page.)

We do believe is a part of the story but explains only some relationships and to a very limited degree.  It is typical for Darwinists to extrapolate to an unlimited degree.  For example, just because there is some ancestral relationship, they assume that every element of life and life forms has a complete history of ancestry.  They assume that because random genes mutations can account for small changes in an organism that random gene changes account for all changes in and between organisms.  Those are just assumptions.  There is no scientific principle that allows for unlimited extrapolation.

We do not believe in common descent from Taxa to Taxa; that is descent between truly different families of life such as vertebrates and invertebrates.  Limited common descent is, however, not anything like strong evidence for Darwinian macro evolution and no evidence at all for the Darwinist belief that only selection from random gene changes is the cause of more than closely related species within a genus (family), like within the cat family for example.  Common descent is evidence for micro evolution but little if any evidence for macro evolution.  Link here to our essay on what we believe Darwinian macro evolutionists are missing in their reasoning.

We are not saying that common descent is not a component of evolution, we are just saying that it is not a universal unquestionable fact for all of life and even its limited truth by no means proves that Darwinism can explain all of life.  If there is "design" from some source (such as God) that would also have the characteristics cited by Darwinists and also fit a lot of facts that Darwinism macro evolution does not.   Link here to other possible sources of life's complexities.

Leaps of logic in such questionable evolution reasoning of supposed "proof" are a main reason many scientists are now raising doubts about Darwinian macro evolution.  The scientist who wrote one of the mainline books on evolution "Biochemical predestination (Doctorate in biophysics and professor of biology at S.F. State University in Calif.) has through his studies and intimate knowledge of the biology of life come to believe that Darwinism cannot be the full explanation for life and that design of some type must also be involved.   

Science, in any case, is not supposed to depend on dogmatic statements and leaps of logic.  The claim that DNA code and decoding machinery similarity proves that all life originated from a single source is such a leap of logic.  It is just dogma with at best limited supporting evidence that is open to other interpretations.  Defense of such an assumption is inherent in the Darwinian macro evolution position since the already extreme improbability of life based solely on Darwinian selection would become an even more indefensible improbability if it supposedly happened by chance alone (together with survival of the fittest) more than once on the same planet or for that matter in the entire universe.

Common descent theory is certainly a little more defensible when one looks at the findings of simple life early in evolution together with a common DNA code.   Similarity implies but does not, however, prove descendent relationship as we believe the following arguments show. 

What follows is a short discussion showing a more open-minded evaluation of the possible meanings of commonalities.  Good reasoning should avoid leaps of logic and dogmatic positions where information is uncertain or missing.  Good reasoning should not rule out possibilities simply on the basis of dogma or assumption.

Similarity of elements could mean one or more of the following;

1) Relationship in terms of a common ancestor (as claimed by Darwinian macro evolutionists.)

2) Nonlinear relationship (attractors) in a common underlying law(s) of physics controlling and governing structure.

3) Multiple early life forms organized by some form of field not yet discovered.

4) Relationship in terms of origination from a common design field or Designer.

Darwinian macro evolutionists rule out the possibility of design/designer without any proof that that is true and also assume that if that was proven, it would rule out 4) above.  It has not been and almost certainly cannot be proven, in either regard, but even if we assume that their assumption is correct, that would not rule out 2) as a possible explanation.

The question then (with the unscientific assumption that 4) is ruled out) is whether or not one can rule out 2) and 3) without proof of whether or not some other evidence exists which proves that 1) is in fact true.

If one assumes that 2) and 3) can be ruled out because some underlying law is not known to exist, then one is not doing science but rather simply making an assumption.  That assumption is that if science is incapable of determining if some underlying law(s) do exist and will be incapable of doing so in the future.  If determinate testing is not even tried, then this also inherently assumes that if science at that point in time cannot detect something, it cannot exist.  That same type of position taken prior to the discovery of radio waves would, of course, be seen after the discovery to be bad science.

There is an insect in new zealand called the weta (a beetle) that has miniature tusks which if scaled up in size would look just like elephant tusks. No rational person would believe that this proves that elephants evolved from beetles!  As with the possible existence of design or a determining field, if one just assumes them away, that is not scientific.

What this all illustrates to some degree is that science related positions are only valid to the degree to which assumptions are not made which inherently lock out other possibilities for science to explore and such positions are, in any case, inherently limited to some degree by the current state of science knowledge.  It has never been proven that truly novel and different forms of life actually have ancestral relationships which can bridge all differences in life forms. 

In the book "Nature's Destiny", the author (M. Denton, Senior Research Fellow in Human Molecular Genetics, Ph.D. in developmental biology) discusses DNA starting on page 149 and continuing thru page 167.  Through analysis of the science, he concludes that any other code, even if double helix, would be much less efficient that the 4 base pair (4bp) DNA that is found in all life.  He also concludes on page 160 that "the 4 natural pairs produce the optimally stable and faithfully copied DNA."  He goes on to say on page 160; "That there may be only 4 bases available has important implications related to the encoding of information for the specification of proteins and for the retrieval of genetic information by proteins from DNA."  He clearly meant chemically possible bases, and we believe it may be far more profound that Doctor Denton may have realized at the time.  How would chance has settled on a code (and the code reading machinery) that just happened to be the best possible code for all of life if Darwinism is the only mechanism.  The only seems likely if some form of guidance was acting.  Darwinism cannot anticipate new future needs.  It is important to keep in mind that whatever its power, Darwinism can only operate on present conditions.

 Other thoughts on commonality of DNA code can be found here.

It  is also worth noting that there is a fundamental problem for evolution theory at the start of life called the error catastrophe.

Some alternative ideas to single origin theory. (Besides design which would also account for common DNA code.)

Correlations May Not Prove the Cause (Third major paragraph.)

When Does Correlation Imply Causation?

How correlations may lead to wrong conclusions.  (Start reading after end of introduction section.)

Common structure does not prove common ancestry. (Religious site)

A Scientific Critique of Evolution.

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

Revolution Against Evolution Essays. (Numerous essays.)

Design vs. Descent: A war of predictions