Summations Only

I'm not the slightest bit surprised. "because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs" - not because of any theory about common descent. In other words, common descent is irrelevant and is actually of no practical use to anyone. This is just Darwinist rhetoric. I could offer the explanation that the similarity is due to all life being created by the same Creator, who used the same "building blocks" in all life forms. But my Creationist model doesn't assist or advance applied science - and neither does your Darwinist model of common descent.

Darwinists claim antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution.
Antibiotic resistance is nothing more than natural selection.
Common ancestry is evolution.... Therefore Darwinists use natural selection as evidence for common descent.

Regardless of anything in your post, you haven't provided any proof that accepting the theory of common descent was helpful in developing the relevant vaccines (ditto for any vaccine).
Common descent is an irrelevance to applied biology, why don 't you just admit it and stop beating about the bush?

Exactly! Darwinists vehmently insist that their beloved theory of common descent is vital to biology and that it is eminently useful in applied science, but when one examines their claims, one finds them spurious and empty. It's all bluff and hot air. These poor souls are so indoctrinated by the Darwinist cult that they have trouble thinking any other way.

Thank you for supplying this article. I will add it to my collection as it represents a classical example of mendacious Darwinist propaganda.Allow me to point out the b.s. contained therein, as you obviously can't see it:Firstly, you can bet your bottom dollar that whenever "Evolutionary theory" is mentioned, 99.99% of the time it is referring to principles and facts of biology that are readily confirmed by observation or repeatable experiments - such as natural selection, variation, recombination, genetic drift, etc, etc. None of these things are denied by creationists and are demonstrable realities ... whether one accepts common descent as a fact or not.
Of course, Darwinists like to misleadingly label said demonstrable principles and facts as "evolutionary", hoping that the uncritical and gullible amongst us will associate them with "real" evolution - ie, common descent. But not all of us are that easily fooled - if a relatively uneducated bozo like Dredge can see through this sham, what's your excuse?Secondly, when it says, "the evolutionary principle of common descent has proven its usefulness", this is really Darwinist-speak for, "the fact of genetic similarities between different organisms has proven its usefulness." This is explained by the fact thatDarwinists consider that there can be no other possible explanation for genetic similarities between organisms other than common descent. So when they see said genetic similarities, they see common descent. This false equivalence is a form of intellectual alchemy, but is de rigueur in evolutionary "science".By the way, to claim that common descent is the only possible explanation for genetic similarities between organisms is flawed thinking and at the very least represents a Fallacy of the False Alternative - in other words, it's junk science. So the bottom line is, it's the genetic similarities between organisms that have proven useful, and not accepting common descent as a fact. The theory of common descent is a complete irrelevance to applied science.P.S. I notice Talk Origins is pushing that old myth about HIV
coming from monkeys in Africa. So scientific!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Excellent point, Faith. I'm sure we've lost a lot of functionality due to the effects of Original Sin, and we probably tend to under-estimate such losses. Junk DNA makes perfect scientific sense in the Biblical-creationist paradigm.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Talk Origins = Talk Atheist Theology = Talk Satanic Fairy TaleEdited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Moot point. Why did God create spiders with eight legs ... the sky blue ... grass green ... jelly fish ... flies? Why did he give Dredge super-intelligence and movie-star looks? Not understanding why the Creator created as he did is not a persuasive argument against it happening.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The dogma, arrogance and indoctrination of Darwinism reminds me of what you find in the worst kind of cults .. and some religions. Darwinism is like the Taliban of science. I like the way you think, aristotle! ... most of the time, anyway : ) PE is a joke. It is accepted only by folks whose definition of "science" is wide and loose enough to include pseudo-scientific nonsense and intellectual superstition.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Hence, Darwinists can justify claiming antibiotic resistance is "evolution", which requires no increase in genetic information.
This is a different sort of "evolution" to a human descending from a bug, which entails massive increases in functional complexity and therefore massive increases in genetic information. So there are actually two kinds of "evolution" ... but Darwinists will tell you, No, there is only one kind of evolution.

CRR ... "Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site." I would bet my bottom dollar that 99% of the authors at Talk Origins are atheists.

Good question. Nevertheless, "speciation" is a another of those misleading terms that Darwinists love to employ; it's meant to convey the idea that it is a demonstrable fact that one species evolves from another species, in which case, a whale can evolve from a racoon.Green Warblers "speciate", for example, but they are all still Green Warblers. What this has to do with enabling a whale to descend from a racoon is something that only the wonderful mind of a Darwinist can comprehend. Accepting such "science" evidently requires a special intellectual talent ... which I fortunately lack.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Nonsense. Catholics aren't "told" to believe anything about evolution. As a Catholic, I am free to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and completely reject ToE. You seem to be confusing what Catholics are officially obliged to believe with what Catholics are free to believe.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Evolution claims that since humans and chimps are so genetically similar, they must share a common ancestor. But a Creator could have created these two creatures as close-but-different simply because he wanted to. Choose whichever theory appeals to you.

No and no. But genetic informaton is a logical concept that I expect science will verify as an irrefutable fact one day. Then you won't be able to dismiss it as creationist pseudoscience. You will then also have to reconcile the existence of two kinds of evolution - one that doesn't require an increase in information and one that does ... which Darwinists have long claimed is one and the same thing. Dredge begs to differ.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.