Is any medical research reliant upon Common Ancestry being true

[Tristen]

As far as bacteria go, it is true that at some point the specific means by which genetic material is transmitted is changed. That doesn't really change anything in a qualitative way I do not think. Saying that just because bacteria can evolve doesn't give us any clue to how anything else evolves wasn't the point of my examples anyway. The mechanism of evolution is the same on a small and large scale. Furthermore, these trees implicitly assume common descent, that is the guiding conceptual principle behind them. It is true, you can imagine away that part, or just decide it is a cute mathematical trick to form these charts, but that doesn't change the fact that they are highly suggestive of common ancestors linking the end products together.

 

 

You said “As far as bacteria go, it is true that at some point the specific means by which genetic material is transmitted is changed”

 

If I have understood your statement correctly, for your statement to be true, one has to presuppose the truth of Common Ancestry – which I understand is your position, but somewhat meaningless in a discussion where your opponent disagrees with this premise.

 

 

 

“Saying that just because bacteria can evolve doesn't give us any clue to how anything else evolves wasn't the point of my examples anyway”

 

I avoid the use of the terms “evolution” and “evolve” because they can mean so many different things; making them subject to equivocation. For example, evolution can mean Natural Selection or it can mean Common Ancestry. So one person can say “evolution” meaning Natural Selection, and another interprets it to mean Common Ancestry. But Natural Selection is a very different concept to Common Ancestry.

 

So I intentionally refrained from any suggestion that bacteria either can, or cannot “evolve”.

 

 

 

“The mechanism of evolution is the same on a small and large scale”

 

I’m not sure what you are claiming here. If you were referring to bacteria, it’s not a matter of small to large scale, it’s a matter of trying to justify the assumption of one mechanism using examples which incorporate a completely different mechanism.

 

 

 

“these trees implicitly assume common descent, that is the guiding conceptual principle behind them. It is true, you can imagine away that part, or just decide it is a cute mathematical trick to form these charts, but that doesn't change the fact that they are highly suggestive of common ancestors linking the end products together.”

 

I am happy to concede that phylogenic tree diagrams can be legitimately interpreted as evidence of Common Ancestry. However the phylogenies themselves do not “implicitly assume” or ‘suggest’ anything beyond what is represented in the data itself. That is, these diagrams merely represent some measure of similarity. Anything stated beyond that is interpretative speculation (or in your vernacular; imagination).

 

I have not assumed or claimed phylogenies to be a “cute mathematical trick”. But their formulation is in no way contingent upon Common Ancestry. They are formulated around either morphological similarity or some form of genetic similarity. And that’s all they objectively represent.

 

I am not one to accuse opposing positions of having no supporting evidence (which I consider to be an astonishingly unthoughtful claim regardless of the perspective from which it is made). As such, I have never suggested that Common Ancestry has no supporting evidence. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not there is any practical scientific progress (beyond the study of Common Ancestry itself) which is necessarily reliant upon Common Ancestry being true (i.e. could not exist if Common Ancestry were untrue).

[MorningGlory]

 

 

Luckily I have a masters degree in biology and a very high I.Q. to go with it, so I'll translate for anyone who cares:

 

Then maybe you are debating with someone not as learned or as highly intelligent as yourself...how can the average poster hope to make his/her case in the face of this? 

[Guest]

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15

 

~

 

Where did you get your degree? Bob Jones University?

 

~

 

Tis No Game

 

He must increase, but I must decrease. John 3:30

 

To Follow

 

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. John 15:12-14

 

The Master

 

These things I command you, that ye love one another.

 

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

 

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

 

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. John 15:17-20

 

~

 

And As For So Called Science

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

Can One Have The IQ Of A Kim Ung-Yong Or A Marilyn vos Savant

 

Be careful not to let anyone rob you [of this faith] through a shallow and misleading philosophy. Such a person follows human traditions and the world's way of doing things rather than following Christ. Colossians 2:8 (GWT)

 

Kim claimed that people invest too much meaning in IQ.

 

“Some think people with a high IQ can be omnipotent, but that’s not true. Look at me, I don’t have musical talent, nor am I excelling in sports,” he said.

 

Just like the world records for athletes, having a high IQ is just another element of human talent.

 

“If there is a long spectrum of categories with many different talents, I would only be a part of the spectrum. I’m just good in concentrating on one thing, and there are many others who have different talents,” he explained. http://nbnl.globalwhelming.com/2010/10/13/worlds-highest-iq-man-kim-ung-yong-tells-his-successful-life-story-and-why-the-media-is-crap/

 

And Still Give Credit

 

I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. My soul knows that very well. Psalms 139:14 (WEB)

 

Where Credit

 

He who made the Pleiades and Orion, and turns deep darkness into the morning and darkens the day into night, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the Lord is his name; Amos 5:8 (ESV)

 

Is Due

 

Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Isaiah 40:26 (NIV)

 

~

 

And What Is Really Smart

 

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

 

Anyway?

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

 

Love, Joe

[Guest]

Luckily I have a masters degree in biology and a very high I.Q. to go with it, so I'll translate for anyone who cares:

 

Then maybe you are debating with someone not as learned or as highly intelligent as yourself...how can the average poster hope to make his/her case in the face of this? 

 

 

So Sorry; A Very High IQ

 

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Isaiah 55:7-8

 

And An Infinitely Higher IQ

 

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9

 

So, What's The Brag?

 

But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 2 Corinthians 10:17

[Fez]

 

Due to her continued demeaning attitude and personal attacks MrsRational will no longer be taking part in this thread.

 

I was not personally offended by the comments of MrsRational. I am secure in my beliefs and position and am happy to have it scrutinized by anyone who disagrees with me. I feel that I am able to defend myself in light of any emotive arguments and am dissappointed that MrsRational is no longer able to participate in this discussion.

 

All of you please read the ToS. This is a Christian Ministry site, a fact that many of the apologetic s forum debates (how they are conducted) are not pointing toward in any way shape or form of late. OneLight has already had to lock a thread, and instead of locking threads I will also be banning those who show no grace in the individual thread.

 

This is not yahoo or Facebook, it is the best run, most cordial (mostly), Christian Ministry site on the web, and many new members tell us that this is why they came to it.

 

As mod's our job is to keep it that way.

 

God Bless every one of you,

[enoob57]

Okay. Phylogenetics presupposes common ancestry. I think there are many solid examples in the link that people can judge for themselves.

 

I disagree that the examples are "solid". They do not demonstrate the necessity of Common Ancestry for any discovery. I have provided specific arguments demonstrating why they fail to do so.

 

And that's my point - no scientific discovery is necessarily, logically reliant upon Common Ancestry being true. Every discovery made by science could have been made independently of these secular assumptions. The assumption that all life on earh is related through a series of common Ancestors was not a necessary, logical prerequisit of any scientific discovery.

 

What that means is - I can take my medicine without logically compromising my position. And I can confidently, rationally put to rest any specious claim that my position ignores evidence or is anti-science.

 

 

I am happy for people to "judge for themselves". Rational people will consider both arguments and either agree with my proposal, or attempt to provide a rational rebuttal of my position. Others who are less rational will simply see what they want to see (in accordance with their own confirmation biases) and continue to stumble blindly through life; comfortable in their ignorance.

This is inferred directly by this Scripture-

Matt 15:14

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

KJV When we rule our own heart as to choice it will be based on the ruins that it is in naturally (blindness)

Love, Steven