Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 91 of 1385 (849403)
03-08-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by edge
11-23-2018 2:03 PM


edge writes:
Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before?
Je ne sais pas. Non lo so.
You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post.
???
First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse.
1. Wrong. Theoretical science can prove invaluable.
2. Straw man.
Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness.
Er, no - I can't find "my personal criteria" in the OP. The OP actually asks for usefulness according to applied science.
Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences.
1. Irrelevant to the post.
2. I am not a YEC and I have never mentioned ID.
3. YEC/ID are religious beliefs - you want me to provide practical scientific applications for religious beliefs?
No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.
Let me guess ... here you were thinking that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of your cherished belief in UCA, but it seems that nothing in all of applied science depends on your UCA belief system - and you find this hard to accept?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 11-23-2018 2:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 03-09-2019 5:17 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 92 of 1385 (849404)
03-08-2019 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tanypteryx
03-07-2019 12:43 AM


Re: Name one.
Tanypteryx writes:
Do you know why it's blue?
Yes. But it's irrelevant to my point and do you really want to discuss something we all learnt about in highschool?
Understanding how light and elements in the atmosphere interact might have practical applications in spectrographic chemical analysis, but you are a purist and the sole arbiter of what is practical in applied science, or any science it seems.
You're digressing. I said I can't think of a practical use for knowing that the sky is blue - can you?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-07-2019 12:43 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 93 of 1385 (849406)
03-08-2019 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by AZPaul3
03-07-2019 4:43 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
So, ok, no one here can meet your unreasonable requirements of an example.
How do the confines of applied science amount to "unreasonable requirements". Applied science is the most important sphere of science and it is only sphere of science that really matters. No one reduced suffering or cured disease or fed hungry mouths with a theory, esp not one of the most useless theories ever - UCA.
Do we have to care about your errant opinions?
I can answer your question, as I don't know what you mean by "your errant opinions".
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2019 4:43 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AZPaul3, posted 03-08-2019 2:02 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 94 of 1385 (849407)
03-08-2019 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tangle
03-07-2019 1:43 AM


Re: Name one.
qs writes:
Knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't need a practical use.
I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2019 1:43 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2019 2:45 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 95 of 1385 (849408)
03-08-2019 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
03-07-2019 10:54 AM


ringo writes:
it doesn't need a practical use to be true
I know.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 03-07-2019 10:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 03-08-2019 10:44 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 96 of 1385 (849409)
03-08-2019 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by JonF
03-07-2019 11:25 AM


Re: Name one.
JonF writes:
That bans all of science from the discussion.
Really? I was under the impression "science" actually includes "applied science".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 03-07-2019 11:25 AM JonF has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 108 of 1385 (849517)
03-13-2019 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by LamarkNewAge
03-10-2019 8:55 PM


Re: I was asking for the (ex post facto) Creationism Theory for the research.
LarmarkNewAge writes:
I think it is obvious that the UCA "macro-evolutionary" theory can easily offer the mice disease research as powerful (?) support for the theory.
It well may, but you're barking up the wrong tree - the OP isn't concerned with support for ToE.
I want the creationist argument.
In that case, you're in the wrong thread
I fully expect some lame, "God was efficient, so he made us mammals with similar DNA", type of response
No wonder you find creationist explanations "lame" - you expect a scientific explanation for a religious belief!
Nevertheless, here is another "lame" explanation based on a progressive creation model: The Bible says God used inanimate matter to make the first creatures; He then used the DNA (inanimate matter again) from these early creatures to make subsequent (and genetically related) creatures ... and so on for millions of years until we get to the age of man. This process explains why creation looks like evolution (with gaps) and why mice and humans share genetic similarities.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-10-2019 8:55 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 109 of 1385 (849518)
03-13-2019 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Stile
03-08-2019 9:17 AM


Stile writes:
Transistors are only "eminently useful in a practical sense and have also proven useful in applied science" within the realm of electronic devices.
Go ahead, try it.
Can you think of any usefulness of a transistor at all outside of electronics?
That's what you're doing with "useless stories of UCA."
Sure - they may very well be useless "outside the realm of evolutionary theory."
Which is why your "transistor" analogy is lame - a transistor has a practical use; UCA has no practical use ... anywhere.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Stile, posted 03-08-2019 9:17 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Stile, posted 03-13-2019 8:24 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 110 of 1385 (849519)
03-13-2019 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
03-08-2019 10:44 AM


ringo writes:
Then why are you wasting time with this thread?
I was wondering if anyone could provide an example of use for UCA, but it's becoming increasingly clear there are none. Which makes the theory of evolution the scientific equivalent of a blank bullet - it makes a lot of noise and smoke and attracts a lot of attention, but it doesn't actually do anything.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 03-08-2019 10:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 03-13-2019 3:17 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 111 of 1385 (849520)
03-13-2019 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by edge
03-09-2019 5:17 PM


edge writes:
Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes?
Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 03-09-2019 5:17 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by JonF, posted 03-13-2019 9:31 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2019 12:02 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 121 by edge, posted 03-13-2019 2:42 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 112 of 1385 (849521)
03-13-2019 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by edge
03-09-2019 5:17 PM


edge writes:
Dredge writes:
Let me guess ... here you were thinking that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of your cherished belief in UCA
Then you guess wrongly. I am not a biologist and that is not my first impression of the argument.
My comment was a play on Theodore Dobzhansky's line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has become a kind of mantra in biological science and is the title of his famous essay. Upon reading said essay, one realizes that what Dobzhansky meant by "evolution" was the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record, which of course includes the concept of UCA.
But Dobzhansky was deluded and wrong, for there is nothing in all of applied biology (ie, the only form of biology that matters) that depends on the concept/theory/conclusion of UCA or even human evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 03-09-2019 5:17 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by edge, posted 03-13-2019 2:37 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 113 of 1385 (849522)
03-13-2019 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by LamarkNewAge
03-09-2019 7:20 PM


Re: Don't creationists have a universal common ancestor too?
LarmarkNewAge writes:
The sames creationists say there was divergence and "evolution".
The same creationists accept DNA as real.
Genetic understanding is relevant to deciding which people are more likely to suffer from whatever type of disease.
Genetic understanding is also relevant to getting the best treatment.
Now, the question:
The question is whether "macro" evolutionary understanding of DNA comparisons can help clue a scientist in on fruitful areas of disease research, and in a way that creationists might be inclined to avoid.
Look at the issue of using animal research to help find cures to human diseases.
Whales get HIV, I believe. Rats and Chimps have some useful "disease research" functions.
Does the macro-evolutionary understanding cause more and better research to necessarily happen?
1. Please be advised that "research" and even "better research" is not a practical use. Research can and often does lead to a practical use, but until it does, research is practically useless.
2. You seem to be conflating useful facts (which can lead to useful applications) with an irrelevant and useless theory (which never leads to useful applications).
To illustrate my point, please consider this: The genetic similarities between humans and mice (ie, a useful fact) exist regardless of any theory that attempts to explain why said genetic similarities exist. One doesn't any explanatory theory at all for said genetic similarities in order for said genetic similarities to exist and to be practically useful.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-09-2019 7:20 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by JonF, posted 03-13-2019 9:48 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 123 of 1385 (849566)
03-14-2019 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by edge
03-13-2019 2:42 PM


Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'.
I don't know - certainly not me.
Maybe a theory should have an application in 'science'. AFAICS, you are just trying to create a false predicament.
???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by edge, posted 03-13-2019 2:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 03-15-2019 3:37 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 124 of 1385 (849567)
03-15-2019 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Stile
03-13-2019 8:24 AM


Stile writes:
Well, except for making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory - for biologists to do all the practical work they do in all of biology.
1. "all the practical work they (biologists) do in all of biology" - otherwise known as "applied biology", as mentioned in OP.
2. You are partly wrong and partly right. None of the practical work biologist's do depends on, as you claim, "making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory", because "evolutionary theory" has no practical application. However, the practical work of biologists depends a great deal on "making sense" of the facts and principles of "evolution", which are simply facts and principles of biology, that require no knowledge or even awareness of UCA.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Stile, posted 03-13-2019 8:24 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 8:59 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 125 of 1385 (849568)
03-15-2019 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by JonF
03-13-2019 9:31 AM


JonF writes:
Common descent has nothing to do with imaginary beings or alleged aliens.
The point is, common descent (as in the concept of UCA) is as practically useless as fairy tales and science-fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by JonF, posted 03-13-2019 9:31 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by JonF, posted 03-15-2019 9:33 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024