Evolution is a Religious Issue

Well, the internet can probably provide you with 2000 hypotheses, if you are willing to put in the groundwork (you would have to read at least 2000 articles, for example).But i feel pretty confident that the contents of the journal Genetics since 1916 would provide at least 1000 tests of evolutionary theory. I guess it's up to randman to read them.Mick

That's a new one on me! If you believe that "new species arise all the time via evolution" and this understanding is both "necessary and predictive" in biological research, then you've kind of answered the question for yourself.But more generally, the argument is not that people's jobs "depend on the theory of evolution" but that they are able to do their jobs better when they understand the evolutionary background to their system of study. Research in HIV treatment etc. take it for granted that different strains of HIV arise from one another, and this is a fundamental basis for how we research the disease. Similarly, conservation biology uses guestimates of the "evolutionary capital" maintained by ecological systems in order to prioritise conservation efforts.People's jobs do not depend on the idea that ALL life originated from a single ancestor. I cannot think of a job that requires fungus to have a common ancestor with the macaque. Frequently, however, the idea that closely related taxa originated from a single ancestor IS helpful. The idea of a common ancestor for all life is just a consequence of the theory, and it seems reasonable, given what we know about biology.MickMickMick

Hi randman, If found this a bit confusing. Could you give some examples? Because those inferences appear to be 100% consistent with evolutionary biology, but not 100% consistent with any other theory. How do you evolve new plant cultivars or livestock breeds if you deny the concept of direct descent? What do you put in its place?mick

These hypotheses have been tested in a phylogenetic context and have been rejected.Mick