Common descent v. Common design again.

From Ewert’s Dependency Graph Paper – A “Gut Punch” to Darwin’s Tree?

David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

A “gut punch” to the Darwinian Tree of Life is the phrase tentatively applied by the Bradley Center’s Robert J. Marks to the new paper in BIO-Complexity by Winston Ewert, “The Dependency Graph of Life.” Dr. Marks kicks off a series of conversations with Dr. Ewert for ID the Future. I’m reminded again that Marks, among many other distinctions, was born to podcast. He’s really very good at it. His interview with Ewert is a winner, quite amusing and accessible, especially for such a potentially recondite subject. He really wants to help any listener understand what’s potentially “game-changing” about Ewert’s proposal. 

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

In the first episode they discuss the background of how Darwinian theory explains life’s nested hierarchy pattern, suggestive of the famed Tree. Conventional evolutionary thinking teaches that — despite many anomalies (e.g., echolocation popping up in bats and dolphins) — common descent is the only explanation that accounts for what we see. Sure it requires various ad hoc add-ons. But do you have anything better? Ewert may: not common descent but common design.

And what is a dependency graph? That’s to be the subject of their next conversation. I believe this is going to be “Dependency Graph Without Tears,” and not a moment too soon.