I’ve spoken before about common design on this neophyte’s blog but I haven’t really gone into detail yet. This will be the first post where I attempt to delve into the subject a little deeper.
When Darwin formulated his theories on common descent, he realized that the cell wasn’t simply a blob of protoplasm (some make this claim much to my chagrin, because it’s really not necessary). Earlier studies had shown that there was indeed a nucleic area with surrounding structure. Never-the-less, Darwin had no idea of the abject intricacy involved or of the motors and machines that made up the cell. Yes, the sub-parts of the cell are machines that engage in myriad tasks, all of which are essential for the cell to survive, let alone procreate.
The fundamental building block of all this is DNA. DNA is often said to be a good indicator of common descent. I would say it’s also a good indicator of common design. If I were designing a host of lifeforms, I would want to use some common parts for the fundamental building blocks. It would be inefficient to come up with new building blocks for different forms of life. One can not rule out common design simply by pointing at DNA as materialists often do.