Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
590 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 589 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,728 Year: 21,764/19,786 Month: 327/1,834 Week: 327/315 Day: 5/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 121 of 1371 (849532)
03-13-2019 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:29 AM


ommon 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.

Then what is your point? Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'. 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 111 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dredge, posted 03-14-2019 11:52 PM edge has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17645
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 122 of 1371 (849533)
03-13-2019 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:22 AM


Dredge writes:

I was wondering if anyone could provide an example of use for UCA, but it's becoming increasingly clear there are none.


There are none that you will accept - but your acceptance is irrelevant.

Dredge writes:

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.


On the contrary, UCA is only one small part of ToE. You're saying the equivalent of, "Since there is no concrete use for the manufacturer's badge on a car, cars are useless." That's a very silly conclusion.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:22 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:22 AM ringo has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 123 of 1371 (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 responded

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 124 of 1371 (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 responded

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 125 of 1371 (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 responded

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 126 of 1371 (849569)
03-15-2019 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
03-13-2019 3:17 PM


ringo writes:

There are none that you will accept


Which practical use of UCA in applied science have I not accepted?

On the contrary, UCA is only one small part of ToE

Which evolutionary theory has provided a practical use in applied science?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 03-13-2019 3:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 03-15-2019 11:53 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 127 of 1371 (849570)
03-15-2019 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tangle
03-13-2019 12:02 PM


Tangle writes:

Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then.


You seem confused. The OP is not concerned with utility within theoretical science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2019 12:02 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 3:17 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 128 of 1371 (849571)
03-15-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by edge
03-13-2019 2:37 PM


edge writes:


Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'.


You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by edge, posted 03-13-2019 2:37 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-15-2019 3:29 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 135 by edge, posted 03-15-2019 3:30 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 129 of 1371 (849572)
03-15-2019 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
11-21-2018 12:27 PM


Re: Name one.
Faith writes:

No it doesn't. Name one useful thing medicine has taken from the ToE.


I'm not aware of any evolutionary theory that has provided a practical use in medicine or in any form of applied science.
However, I can think of many practical uses for "evolution", as that word is used in biological science, since "evolution" includes phenomena such as mutations, natural selection, recombination, drift, changes in gene frequencies within a population.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 12:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2019 6:17 PM Dredge has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7176
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 130 of 1371 (849573)
03-15-2019 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:26 AM


Dredge writes:

You seem confused. The OP is not concerned with utility within theoretical science.

So I'll repeat my first reply to you.

quote:
Perhaps it is, but so what? Is your concen that in unearthing this knowledge it will further undermine a few fundamentalists' beliefs?

Or are you generally against the persuit of knowledge for its own sake?


It seems that you think that not having a use (it does, but never mind) is important. Why? What are you suggesting should be done about this fact (that you agree is a fact) that you say has no practical value and why?


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 127 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:26 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:29 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


(6)
Message 131 of 1371 (849574)
03-15-2019 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:31 AM


You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

You know what? You are full of bullshit.

I made my living in biology and the first time I ever heard the term "applied biology" was from you right here.

I am an entomologist. We put a lot of effort into understanding how some groups of insects are related to each other. What I primarily worked with are wood boring insects. There are tens of thousands of species of just wood boring beetles and they are being spread around the globe by trade and ending up in new habitats with no one but us to figure out their life history and maybe how to keep them from destroying our forests and our orchards and our crops.

You may not like it and you may not believe it but we are working out the evolutionary history and relatedness of many groups of insects. We are figuring out recent common ancestors and working our way back. We talk about evolution continuously and it allows us to start making predictions about different possible management strategies. Knowing what evolutionary processes and mechanisms have been important in a species history gives us valuable clues to possible parisitoid controls we could employ.

As far as universal common ancestors go it's kind of an obvious conclusion from what we are seeing (to us). People talk about it over beers and at meetings and on field trips, but opinions seem to be spread out over several options. There could be one or a few common ancestors and some of them seem to have exchanged genes and organelles. Most biologists are working on more important problems but occasionally they run across evidence that gives us clues to understanding deeper ancestry. Tens of thousands of species are having their genomes sequenced and this is data on an unprecedented scale. Someone sees the value in what we are learning.

You seem to be giddy that we don't know everything there is to know about a universal common ancestor and that you can't find a practical use for any knowledge we may have learned. Oh gosh. We don't give a shit whether you benefit from it or not and we know a hundred ways to kill you with insects.

You have everything ass backwards. We are not applying evolution to what we are discovering, we are learning evolution from what we are discovering.


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 128 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:31 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:14 AM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 148 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:25 AM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 132 of 1371 (849578)
03-15-2019 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:09 AM


Dredge writes:

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.

Like I said earlier:

"Sure, buddy... whatever you say."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:09 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:43 AM Stile has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5597
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 133 of 1371 (849582)
03-15-2019 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:18 AM


The point is, common descent (as in the concept of UCA) is as practically useless as fairy tales and science-fiction.

I know.

Analogies aren't evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:18 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17645
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 134 of 1371 (849588)
03-15-2019 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:22 AM


Dredge writes:

Which practical use of UCA in applied science have I not accepted?


Message 25 "...scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate."

You responded in Message 79 that, essentially, they could have figured that out anyway. Maybe so, but they DO use evolutionary biology.

Your claim is the same as, "There is no use for a power saw; you can get the same result with a handsaw." That is not proof that power saws are useless.

Edited by ringo, : Sp'ellinge.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:22 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 2:03 AM ringo has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 135 of 1371 (849601)
03-15-2019 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:31 AM


You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

Try telling biologist who doesn't work in applied biology...

You are the one who wanted to confine the discussion to 'applied biology' but now you want to extend it to be the same as all of biology including theoretical biology. Why not just say to 'all of science and engineering' and be done with it.

Again, what is your actual point. Saying that a concept is useless in applied science is about as insipid as you can get.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:31 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:35 AM edge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019