|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What is meant by "ToE" seems to be a subjective thing and varies from person to person.
And? Is it a surprise to you that a robust theory relevant to a large number of science fields might mean different things to different people? Do you think it is uncommon for a given word or idea to have more than one meaning? Do you think that gravity means the same thing for a hydraulic engineer as it does to a theoretical physicist? As usual, it appears that you attempt to sow doubt where there really is none. Or is this just a semantic game that allows you a false feeling of superiority, when really it's just another straw-man argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Dredge writes: Your latest faux claim is that practical uses of the concept of UCA have been presented to me on this thread ... I asked you for evidence of this and you have - surprise, surprise! - nothing. Would you like to start again from the beginning?It's okay, I fully understand how difficult it can be for some to remember such difficult ideas. Here it is again from Message 171: "Medicine."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
The "silly" putdowns just reflect the absurdity of your position. So are silly putdowns.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
If you noticed anything it would be a bloody miracle.
Is it my imagination or am I noticing a pattern here? Dredge writes:
I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no use for UCA. You have been shown that your claim is nonsense. If you're too dense to see what you've been shown, that may be a reflection on my/our ability to demonstrate but it is not a reflection on the reality of the UCA or its usefulness. You sometimes make a claim....And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Would you like to start again from the beginning?
It's pretty clear that the anti-science crowd mistakes their opinions for facts, and that contrary opinions can be dismissed for no other reason. If I find the theory of evolution useful in explaining the data that I see in the geological record, that means exactly nothing to Dredge. Therefor, he can invoke denial as an argument when really, it's just another blinded opinion from someone who cannot fathom the fact that someone might have an alternative opinion. It becomes an article of faith, a way to shut down dialog. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Religionists love picking at definitions because they can't pick at the facts. They think that by mangling the words, the facts will change. There are several ways of defining the ToE; they are all describing the same thing and they're all correct as far as they go. Dredge's mind keeps exploding because we all are giving different definitions of the ToE. A lot of them are saying pretty much the same thing, but even when they are not, they are still are ALL CORRECT. I think I have given 2 or maybe 3 in this thread and none of them are contradictory. Biology is a huge subject and the theory also includes data from paleotology, bio-geography, geology and more. Dredge seems to think that a definition of one or two sentences should include everything. He also mistakenly thinks the definition of the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.
Dredge writes: Tangle writes: there are certainly practical uses for ToE. You're more than a bit daft aren't you? Maybe just a bit... ![]() Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I will ask you again.
Do you know how to use a theory? Can you provide an example of any theory having a practical use? Can you provide an example of a theory that does not incorporate the principals that it attempts to explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
"diversified through time" - that would include UCA, then.
it is an explanation of all the facts regarding how life diversified through time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Dawkins is an anti-evolutionist? you're the one trying to make Dawkins look like an anti-evolutionistHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
I've already explained why - the Cambrian explosion looks nothing like a single "tree of life"; rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that appeared out of nowhere. Oh dear, that's not supposed to happen ...
Even though you can't explain why. It's just your religion.
There's nothing in my religion about the fossil record. However, the fossil record does offer strong evidence of creation, which is in my religion. According to your belief system, evolution is a fact, therefore an inconvenient truth like the Cambrian explosiion is simply swept under the carpet and rationalized away.
So, since it is "referred to" as an explosion in geological terms, you liken it to modern ordnance.
Ten million years is an "explosion" in modern ordnance? (whatever "ordnance" means.) Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in A GEOLOGICAL MOMENT, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time ... ALL MAJOR DISCOVERIES OF THE PAST CENTURY HAVE ONLY HEIGTHENED THE MASSIVENESS AN GEOLOGICAL ABRUPTNESS OF THIS FORMATIVE EVENT ..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682.
There were probably billions of years in the history of life prior to the Cambrian Period.
Probably, but that's irrelevant to my point. What's relevant is what existed in the Ediacaran and what suddenly appeared without any evolutionary history in the Cambrian.
Where were the mammals for instance?
Mammals appeared later - so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Spoken like a true atheist! There's nothing about the Cambrian explosion - or radiation, as science normally refers to it as - that suggests supernatural sources. "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment ... all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." - Stephen J. Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682. "Thus the fossil record seems to show that most of the major animal groups appeared SIMILTANEOUSLY. In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational ... This explosive evolutionary radiation of the Cambrian seems to be unique ... nor was there a similar radiation when animals invaded the land ... the colonisation of the land saw no new ways of making an animal " - S. J. Gould. "the Cambrian phylum count was larger, perhaps much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone ... The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant intial proliferation, followed by much loss" - S. J. Gould "Since the so called Cambrian Explosion ... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record" - S. J. Gould, Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990 Please be advised that an "explosion" of very disparate life-forms appearing "similtaneously" and in "a geological moment" contradicts your evolution model. So the Cambrian explosion doesn't look anything like evolution's single "tree of life" - rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that sprang up out of nowhere, thereby providing powerful evidence of creation and powerful evidence against evolution. Furthermore, evolution predicts diverstiy followed by disparity, which is the opposite of what the Cambrian explosion reveals, which is dispartiy and diversity appearing simitaneously ... oops! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The 'explosion' lasted 25 million years - it was not a sudden event.
More like 10 million years, actually.
Funnier way for a creator to work it seems to me, he didn't start work in the Cambrian, that was billions of years earlier and he omitted very large animal groups from the Cambrian - insects, fish, lizards, birds and, rather importantly, mammals. Odd that if we were the sole point of the excercise.
Are you qualified to judge how God should create? How do you know that man is the "sole point" of billions of years of creation?
Also it's not quite what's written in your book is it? Haven't you heard? The creation story in the Bible is not literal - it doesn't need to be, because what happened pre-Adam is irrelevant to salvation. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Okay, I take your point, but if there is more than one common ancestor, how can one say "all life on Earth is connected ... to each other"?
l life on earth *is* related to each other. We have never found an organism that isn't made by the sugar molecules - DNA and RNA. We can see by examining the genes that these molecules build how closely related any organism is to another. We can do this with any living organism. So we can directly observe the relatedness of all living organisms. but a UCA is not a necessary part of the theory Tell that to Berkeley University: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene ” or more precisely and technically, allele ” frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time ... The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, Understanding Evolution (emphasis mine). The moral of the story is, there is no definitive definition of ToE - it varies from person to person. because life shares common ancestry we can look back in time and see how it evolved.
Translation: "because we THINK life shares common ancestry we THINK we can look back in time and see how it evolved."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You obviously haven't read all my posts. Well, for starters, I accept the same time-frame for life on earth as you do and I accept same fossil record as you do - which shows that life on earth started with relatively simple forms and progressed in functional complexity over vast periods of time until we get to the present age. So I believe the history of life depicts an "evolution" of created life-forms, but it is not an evolution that is explained by a contiguous process of biological evolution. My progressive creation model also explains why all life on earth appears to be genetically related.
It's more than time to tell us what *you* actually believe so that we can better understand your problem with the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It is not correct to say, "The observed facts and principles of biology are the theory of evolution"; rather, it is correct to say, "the theory of evolution is based on the observed facts and principles of biology". On the other hand, when it comes to definitions of ToE, anything goes; so if someone wants to define ToE as simply the mechanisms of evolution, then who am I to judge?
You're still fighting to misunderstand Religionists love picking at definitions
Not me. There is no definitive definition of the theory of evolution, so it hard to pick at a moving target
There are several ways of defining the ToE; they are all describing the same thing and they're all correct as far as they go.
So you agree with Berkeley Uni when it says "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dredge writes: Spoken like a true atheist! Thank you. But I'm disappointed to say that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are not atheists. I love your continued quoting mining of Gould as though he supported the creationists arguments. Just in case you might have missed any, here's some fallacious Gould quote mines plus a list of many others. I doubt that you'll read the actual words he said, but they're there if after a long prayer session with your god, you are overcome by a sudden moment of honesty. List of fallacious creationist quotes - RationalWiki
quote: More like 10 million years, actually. Source please.
quote:Cambrian Period & Cambrian Explosion: Facts & Information | Live Science The biological concensus seems to be 20-25m years. Biologists do not have a problem with these numbers - evolution sometimes appears to take place “rapidly” with long periods of relative statis.
Are you qualified to judge how God should create? I'm qualified to point out the inconsistency of your argument of how he did it. Creation neither started nor ended in the Cambrian. Nor did it create the species we see today - including man.
How do you know that man is the "sole point" of billions of years of creation? I think you had better say what else he has in mind. I can't find anything in your book to help me. Perhaps you can?
Haven't you heard? The creation story in the Bible is not literal That's what you say; I say that none of the stories in the bible are literal. I don't pick and mix. I think you'd better have that discussion with your fellow creationists.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024