John Paul,
I just wondered if someone who makes blanket statements such as
It has already been shown that the theory of common descent is NOT needed for anything would accept some sort of evidence that would demonstrate, for example, that the theory of common descent actually was necessary or relevant to biology. If the answer is no, if you already know all you need concerning the history of biology, a simple 'no' would suffice.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'cetacean experts,' though I fully expect that there are people who work with whales that can do their jobs without having to affirm the validity of molecules-to-man descent. In a similar vein, you can brew beer (and people did for millennia) without understanding the technical minutiae of the
Sacchomyces existence and life cycle. However, if I made a blanket statement such as
Pasteur's work has no practical importance to the brewing industry, I'd be wrong.
It may come as a surprise to you to hear that Watson and Crick testified that the concept of common descent was of utmost importance in their search to discover the structure of the DNA molecule. I'm sure you'd agree that their research did not increase our knowledge of biology or heredity, nor did their achievements have any practical research value.
regards,
Esteban Hambre