Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 3:56 AM
225 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (4 members, 221 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,778 Year: 18,601/29,783 Month: 546/2,043 Week: 98/386 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 31 of 71 (843824)
11-21-2018 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
11-21-2018 2:28 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed. It's all nothing but theory. And you get distant genetic relationships also by assuming the ToE, otherwise you'd have to explain it more realistically.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2018 2:28 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2018 2:40 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2018 2:44 PM Faith has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1895
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 32 of 71 (843826)
11-21-2018 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
11-21-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Faith writes:

I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

And yet we all remember that you have never shown anything of the kind. You made up a fantasy with no supporting evidence.

Your failure is absolute.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 33 of 71 (843827)
11-21-2018 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
11-21-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction.

quote:

Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed.

Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear.

Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.

quote:

And you get distant genetic relationships also by assuming the ToE, otherwise you'd have to explain it more realistically.

That’s just silly. Gene sequences aren’t assumed nor do assumptions make the matches between them appear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 10:12 PM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6352
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 34 of 71 (843829)
11-21-2018 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
11-21-2018 2:09 PM


Re: Name one.
Faith writes:

But it's been claimed the ToE is useful and I'm saying no it isn't.

Well that's just silly. Of course the ToE is useful, it explains how life on earth developed. What could be more useful?

I'm also saying it isn't even useful as knowledge.

Well it very obviously is useful but why would anyone care if it wasn't?

Darwin's pigeon breeding is very interesting too but it doesn't prove the ToE it only proves built-in variability. When the pigeons are released from controlled reproductive isolation they revert to pretty much their original form. They obviously have pigeon genetics and only pigeon genetics and all the variations lead nowhere except to different varieties of pigeons. When you select a trait and isolate your breeders to emphasize that trait, that trait will become elaborate in the offspring. It's a pigeon trait, it goes nowhere except to a variety of pigeon. Lenski's endless experiments never produced anything but e coli. There is absolutely NO evidence for the ToE AT ALL, NONE!!!!

All of that is knowledge, even if you're right.

So we don't even get knowledge,

What do you think knowledge is? I think it's factual information that can be demonstrated to be true. You don't ever see a qualifyer that it also has to be useful. My neighbour's PhD showed that nothing he was researching was correct. That's also knowledge.

It's false but it keeps on being believed against the utter absense of any corroborating evidence.

That's just your religeous bias and has nothing to do with knowledge.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 9:54 PM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19719
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 35 of 71 (843832)
11-21-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
11-21-2018 12:32 PM


Re: Name one.
Because you can't. I'm right.

Not answering a question doesn't make you right.

Is there a practical use to knowledge? Yes, it helps us understand things so we don't have to rely on mythology and made up fantasies.

If YOU don't find that practical, then tough bananas, because I do.

Now are you going to post another 50 posts on this nonsense? In which case you prove AZPaul's point in spades covered in molasses.

Enjoy

ps -- happy turkey day


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 12:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 10:20 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3518
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 36 of 71 (843837)
11-21-2018 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
11-21-2018 2:13 PM


Re: Name one.
I can't think of anything for chemistry myself.

Think protein folding, via proteomics, via genomics, via evolution.

That'd be a lousy answer from Faith to any question and it seems a lousy answer to me here.

Yes, it would be. I don't give a shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-21-2018 2:13 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 9:45 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 37 of 71 (843843)
11-21-2018 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AZPaul3
11-21-2018 5:48 PM


Re: Name one.
AZP writes:

NNed writes:

I can't think of anything for chemistry myself.

Think protein folding, via proteomics, via genomics, via evolution.

Sure way to win an argument is by talking technical gobbledygook.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2018 5:48 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 11-22-2018 11:13 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 38 of 71 (843845)
11-21-2018 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
11-21-2018 3:44 PM


Re: Name one.
Of course the ToE is useful, it explains how life on earth developed. What could be more useful?

Lots of myths explain how life on earth developed. The only way an explanation is real knowledge is if it's true and the ToE is not, it's just another myth.

Faith writes:

Tangle writes:

Darwin's pigeon breeding is very interesting too but it doesn't prove the ToE it only proves built-in variability. When the pigeons are released from controlled reproductive isolation they revert to pretty much their original form. They obviously have pigeon genetics and only pigeon genetics and all the variations lead nowhere except to different varieties of pigeons. When you select a trait and isolate your breeders to emphasize that trait, that trait will become elaborate in the offspring. It's a pigeon trait, it goes nowhere except to a variety of pigeon. Lenski's endless experiments never produced anything but e coli. There is absolutely NO evidence for the ToE AT ALL, NONE!!!!

All of that is knowledge, even if you're right.

Of course it's knowledge, it just isn't knowledge due to the ToE. It COULD be knowledge that verifies creationism, and I believe it does.

What do you think knowledge is? I think it's factual information that can be demonstrated to be true.

Me too. (With the exception of the kind of knowedge I was just writing to Straggler about on another thread, knowledge derived through faith in the Biblical revelation. But that's not relevant here beyond being an exception to the general statement.)

You don't ever see a qualifyer that it also has to be useful. My neighbour's PhD showed that nothing he was researching was correct. That's also knowledge.

Yes but I'm not the one claiming the ToE is useful. The OP says it is not and I agree, but others here have disagreed and I'm answering them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2018 3:44 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2018 2:32 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 39 of 71 (843846)
11-21-2018 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
11-21-2018 2:44 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
PK writes:

Faith writes:

I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction.

I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible.

Once you have fixed loci for a great number of traits you have this situation that further evolution is effectively impossible. Even if you get a single mutation that is passed on it is a trivial change that is hardly cause for optimism for any change on the scale required by the ToE. Fixed loci are essentially the end of the evolutionary road. And this is where an evolving line has to end up. In the same condition as the cheetah and the elephant seals, and the fact that they got there a lot faster doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation, and if mutation could provide the basis for further variation that might save either from extinction it would have by now. Evolution defeats evolution: it "spends" genetic diversity in order to produce new phenotypes, and if this trend continues to its logical extreme that's the end of evolutiion for that line of variation. And that has to be the definition of the boundary of the Kind: where evolution stops for lack of genetic diversity.

Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed.

Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear.

But if they aren't they aren't, or they are except that onfirmation bias has prevented this from being seen. Transitional fossils do not occur in anywhere near the numbers Darwin himself said would be necessary to prove his theory. You have a very scanty collection, and there is no reason to think of them as anything but variations on a Kind, or another Kind unto itself.

Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.

According to the ToE though, which is self-confirming.

In any case the FACT, and it is a fact, that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity in the formation of new phenotypes, means none of these other considerations carry any weight at all. Evolution beyond variation within the Kind can't happen. Period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2018 2:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2018 12:48 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 40 of 71 (843847)
11-21-2018 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
11-21-2018 4:01 PM


Re: Name one.
Now are you going to post another 50 posts on this [?]

I certainly hope not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2018 4:01 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 41 of 71 (843856)
11-22-2018 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
11-21-2018 10:12 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
quote:

I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible

First, the “necessary number” is very, very low. Second, neutral mutations will do. Third, there are cases where selection will preserve variation. Finally - and most importantly - your argument proves you wrong.

If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again.

“It happened therefore it couldn’t” is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.

quote:

Once you have fixed loci for a great number of traits you have this situation that further evolution is effectively impossible. Even if you get a single mutation that is passed on it is a trivial change that is hardly cause for optimism for any change on the scale required by the ToE. Fixed loci are essentially the end of the evolutionary road

It’s a slowdown, not a stop. And the evidence indicates that it hasn’t got near that stage yet.

quote:

And this is where an evolving line has to end up. In the same condition as the cheetah and the elephant seals, and the fact that they got there a lot faster doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation, and if mutation could provide the basis for further variation that might save either from extinction it would have by now.

The fact that other species haven’t gotten there is evidence that it won’t happen to everything - or, at worst, that it will take a long, long time to happen. Your claims about timescales are just your assumptions.

quote:

Evolution defeats evolution: it "spends" genetic diversity in order to produce new phenotypes, and if this trend continues to its logical extreme that's the end of evolutiion for that line of variation. And that has to be the definition of the boundary of the Kind: where evolution stops for lack of genetic diversity.

So the boundary is a theoretical limit that hasn’t occurred yet - and there is still no evidence of separate “kinds” on Earth.

quote:

But if they aren't they aren't, or they are except that onfirmation bias has prevented this from being seen. Transitional fossils do not occur in anywhere near the numbers Darwin himself said would be necessary to prove his theory. You have a very scanty collection, and there is no reason to think of them as anything but variations on a Kind, or another Kind unto itself.

They don’t exist in the numbers we would expect if the fossil record was complete - but we know it isn’t. Worse for you the missing fossils are mostly those you would call “within kind” evolution - fossils showing the transition from one species to another. But we do have plenty of fossils linking larger taxonomic groups -for instance dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians. To blithely assume that these are just “variations in a kind” and not evidence of an actual relationship is to blind yourself to the evidence.

quote:

According to the ToE though, which is self-confirming.

Wrong on both counts. Evolution should form nested hierarchies but there is no reason for independent creations to form a nested hierarchy. We don’t need the ToE to tell us the latter.

quote:

In any case the FACT, and it is a fact, that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity in the formation of new phenotypes, means none of these other considerations carry any weight at all. Evolution beyond variation within the Kind can't happen. Period.

It is not a “FACT” that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity. The evidence says that it hasn’t, that there are no separate kinds and your theoretical speculations can’t defeat evidence. Build your castles in the air if you like, but the real science will just ignore them, as it should.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 10:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 3:06 PM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6352
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 42 of 71 (843857)
11-22-2018 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
11-21-2018 9:54 PM


Re: Name one.
Faith writes:

Lots of myths explain how life on earth developed.

They sure do. And, as you say, they're myths.

The only way an explanation is real knowledge is if it's true and the ToE is not, it's just another myth.

The difference betwen myth and fact is that fact can be demonstrated objectively to be true. For example your belief that the world is 6,000 years old is a myth proven wrong by objective evidence. The ToE is the most empirically supported theory in science. Your religious beliefs can have no baring on objective facts - ie knowledge.

Of course it's knowledge, it just isn't knowledge due to the ToE. It COULD be knowledge that verifies creationism, and I believe it does.

So publish and show us all wrong. Collect you $1m pize and go down in history forever.

Yes but I'm not the one claiming the ToE is useful. The OP says it is not and I agree, but others here have disagreed and I'm answering them.

You're making a right mess of it too. The OP is asking about the usefulness of finding the common ancestor, not the usefulness of the ToE. The finding of a common ancestor would be knowledge and knowledge is useful for its own sake.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 9:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 2:35 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 2:38 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 43 of 71 (843862)
11-22-2018 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
11-20-2018 8:07 AM


dredge writes:

I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe...

Luckily for humanity no form of the earth sciences even claims that.

dredge writes:

... that existed billions of years ago, but can't find any.

Maybe it's because you don't have a clue what science is? That's why.

dredge writes:

It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.

That's what happens when you are ignorant enough to believe that Periods are layers despite having been corrected multiple times.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 11-20-2018 8:07 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 2:22 PM Pressie has responded
 Message 48 by caffeine, posted 11-22-2018 2:35 PM Pressie has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 71 (843876)
11-22-2018 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
11-21-2018 9:45 PM


Re: Name one.
Faith writes:

Sure way to win an argument is by talking technical gobbledygook.


When I had an internet connection at home, I was connected to the World Community Grid, which uses the idle time of members' computers to do tedious scientific calculations. They had mine doing protein folding.

Proteins are large, complex molecules that can fold into various shapes (think Tinker-Toys). The parts that "stick out" determine how the protein interacts with its environment, so the different shapes that it can have are very important, particularly to medicine.

We understand your difficulties with vision, so maybe you can't learn these things for yourself, but it's downright stupid of you to proclaim something "useless" when you haven't even bothered to understand it.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 9:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 11-22-2018 2:28 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 45 of 71 (843892)
11-22-2018 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Pressie
11-22-2018 4:29 AM


You have misattributed those quotes to me, but it is dredge who said them. Please correct.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2018 4:29 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Pressie, posted 11-23-2018 3:51 AM Faith has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018