You speak as though you can say, with authority, that you have observed examples of both "common design" and "common ancestry" and therefore can accurately distinguish between the two.
But, that is begging the question. How can you know (when you study and observe a given set of organic beings) that you are looking at an example of common ancestry as opposed to an example of common design?
You have already ruled out "common design" (because it doesn't fit your evolutionary preconceptions). In your view, common design simply never occurs because you have already decided beforehand that no Designer exists. That only leaves the other option (the only one you will accept) which is common ancestry. So I guess no matter what species we are talking about or looking at, we all know that we shall see the idea of common ancestry "proved".
A. It is impossible to say that something is designed without knowing something of the attributes, motives and methods of the designer. Forensic investigation cannot proceed without knowing how the presumed actor behaves, and what it limitations are.
B. We know from observation that natural selection is capable of bringing about speciation and diversity.
You speak as though you can say, with authority, that you have observed examples of both "common design" and "common ancestry" and therefore can accurately distinguish between the two.
Indeed I have. Not only have I "observed" examples of "common design", I have personally created quite a few of them. I am quite conversant with the design process, and what sorts of features designed objects will and will not have, and for what reasons, and what sorts of characteristic features will be found shared, and not shared, by things made by a common designer.
But, that is begging the question.
Maybe you are, but I'm not.
How can you know (when you study and observe a given set of organic beings) that you are looking at an example of common ancestry as opposed to an example of common design?
Because, as I've already pointed out, common design produces certain types of similarities and differences, which are quite distinct and recognizeably different than the types of similarities and differences which result in things which are produced by common ancestry. You clearly haven't bothered to read the links I provided -- these go into more specific detail on that topic.
You have already ruled out "common design"
No, I haven't. You are jumping to false conclusions based on nothing I've actually written.
(because it doesn't fit your evolutionary preconceptions).
Wrong again.
In your view, common design simply never occurs because you have already decided beforehand that no Designer exists.
No, you are yet again mistaking your *presumptions* for facts. You have either misunderstood my points, or are letting your own preconceptions get in the way of understanding them.
That only leaves the other option
No, I do not make the mistake of the fallacy of the false dichotomy. I have pointed out that there is *positive* evidence for common ancestry, nowhere have I committed the fallacy (so common among fans of "design") of thinking that I can "demonstrate" one explanation by trying to rule out some other explanation.
Are you actually reading my posts, or just posting your wild guesses about how someone "must" examine these issues?
(the only one you will accept)
Now you're just being obnoxiously insulting. No, that is not the case, and I have said nothing which would lead any rational person to that conclusion.
which is common ancestry.
I assert that there is positive evidence of common ancestry, because there is. Not only have you failed to deal with that issue, you have run around issuing baseless insults while utterly misdescribing my position, failing to address what I have actually said, and dodging having to deal with the actual evidence in any way.
Do you want to have an actual discussion, or do you just want to desperately issue insults so you won't have to think?
So I guess no matter what species we are talking about or looking at, we all know that we shall see the idea of common ancestry "proved".
You "guess" wrongly. I can only speculate as to whether the reason is your utter failure to understand the material, or your unwillingness to address it.
Come back and try again when you're ready and able to talk about something I've actually written, and not so quick to spew groundless insults in an attempt to console yourself about how anyone who arrives at a conclusion different than yourself "must" have gotten there by virtue of being a closed-minded idiot. I guess that's more comforting than having to deal with the fact that they might possibly have information that could challenge your desired conclusions, eh?