Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,20:26)|
|IMHO, similar designs will have similar points of failure, just like cars with similar designs have similar problems. I don’t think you need to assume common descent here.|
There's an important difference between similar designs in cars, and similarities in the biological world.
Cars have true chimeras. Your Ford might have a motor developed by Mazda, completely unrelated to the long line of true Ford motors. In fact, different variants of the same model might have one or the other. With "common design", this makes perfect sense: You'd expect an intelligent designer to mix and match the best available parts. This doesn't happen in nature. If you can prove it does, your name will go down in history next to Darwin and Einstein.
Evolution can't reach into the parts bin and pick the best thing for the job. In general, it can only modify what an individual got from it's ancestors (there are exceptions but they don't change the basic picture). What we see in both fossils and genetics fits this picture extremely well. What we see in designed objects like cars does not.
Perhaps you can explain why the designer chose not to mix and match, but instead stuck to the same nested hierarchies that common descent would produce ?
You might also want to be a bit more careful checking into the sites you quote. Some of the ones you quoted on animal testing are of dubious reliability, and definitely not impartial (one even belongs to an organization which has been labeled as domestic terrorists by the DHS, for whatever that is worth.)