I suspect, and you guys can tell me if I am wrong and show some specifics, that what you term "evolution" in applied biological research is nothing but the general concept of evolution, and really even YECers believe that. They beleive, for example, that new species arise all the time via evolution.But the issue is much more narrow that that. It is common descent, and the idea that every day, people's jobs in research depends on whether the specific concept of common descent from a single organism is true rather than just evolution of species from prior species, well, I suspect just the general concept is necessary and predictive.Please give some specifics.Btw, I notice on other threads, such as the existence of Jesus, that most of you guys do not play by the same rules. The vast majority of scholars, for example, accept there was a historical Jesus, and yet some here demand some sort of proof of that when even googling an encyclopedia would tell the same.As far as the theory of common descent, as long as evolutionists present it via exegarrations, imo, it is not worthy of consideration as real science, for the most part.This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 08:20 PM

"Farmers wouldn't go to a plant breeder (who uses many inferences from evolutionary biology) for a new variety to plant, they would go to their local priest to pray for the crop or the weather. "Um, this is not actually correct. Those same inferences are not exclusive to evolutionary biology, and frankly, I consider it disingenious to make such a claim because it is an overstatement, and the arguments for common descent so rely on overstatements that after awhile, I think someone truly looking at the subject objectively would come to the conclusion that even if true, it is not treated in general as real science, but relies on indoctrination and propaganda.That's certainly how I came to view the way evolution is presented, taught, argued and believed, and I once accepted it's tenets.

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

No, it is not a consequence of the ToE at all. If it is true of all extant life on earth then that is just a happenstance of the unfolding of life's developement.\In "The Origin of Species" Darwin referst to life being breathed into one or a few....

Mick,In response to both posts, perhaps what is occuring here is a difference in definitions. When someone talks of the theory of evolution, that to me is the theory of common descent.Speciation is not denied by any camp that I know of.I am not a YEC, but my understanding of what they believe, for example, is that all species of cats derived from just one or 2 cat "kinds", and even go as far as to claim that, for instance, on Noah's ark, there would not need to be all of the various species, just species that could rapidly evolve into new species "after their kind."So all the different bears could have come from one bear group, and so on.So the debate, as far as I can tell, is not whether speciation occurs, or evolution occurs, but whether everything descended from one common ancestor, and moreover descended via the methods evolutionists argued. For example, if one accepts the anthropomorphic principle as valid, then that would make one an IDer and not a materialist evolutionist because there would be a goal intended prior to the development and evolution of species.I think it's critical for these discussions if they are to be at all fruitful, to at least recognize what the different sides of the argument and debate, and the different camps are saying.Don't you agree?

No, not really. The YECs are simply wrong. That is a

FACT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My wife is attempting to construct a phylogentic key for a family of certain organisms that are unfortunately quite difficult to key taxonomically at a crucial stage in their development. (I'm not at liberty to be more specific.) The evolutionary proposition of common descent is a crucial lynchpin to this research. The model of common descent is substantiated by taxonomy and genetics, and that's no exaggeration.

"No, not really. The YECs are simply wrong. That is aFACT."Uh huh. So really the proper way to discuss this whole issue is to not even bother to listen to what others say, but instead to insist they are wrong and do so loudly.Gee, and I am supposed to think that is a logical and well-reasoned argument?

deleted.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-May-2005 10:55 PM

You are, of course, free to think anything you want. That has nothing to do with the fact that the YECs and classical creationists are simply wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, you specifically claimed that I was wrong to say it is important to recognize the different sides of the argument in debate. You responded in the negative, very emphatically, to the following statement of mine."I think it's critical for these discussions if they are to be at all fruitful, to at least recognize what the different sides of the argument and debate, and the different camps are saying."This has more to do with YEC, OEC, ID, or whatever, and more to do with the general nature of what a large portion of evolutionists seem to think is acceptable means of discussion, debate, etc,...

Yeah, I gotta say, I'm on your side on this. I don't understand all the negativity. Of course you have to comprehend the arguments of the opposition if you want to be able to rebut them.

Thanks for that comment, Crash.Just for the record, if anyone is paying attention, I am not a YEC, but at the same time, I do not consider all of their research and points invalid. I think in some ways YEC presents the most testable model out there. I just don't accept all of their take on the evidence.

There really can't be a debate on the Young Earth issue. That's settled. The earth is billions of years old. There can't be a debate on the validity of the Genesis Creation myth. It's wrong. It really is as simple as that.People can believe anything they want. But there is no dispute over whether or not the earth is 6000 years old or billions of years old. That's not subject to belief, it's testable and quite frankly, settled.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion