Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
139 online now:
CosmicChimp, Faith, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 135 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,727 Year: 2,475/23,288 Month: 666/1,809 Week: 98/225 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 151 of 1385 (849652)
03-17-2019 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Stile
03-15-2019 8:59 AM


Stile writes:


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."

Wow, that's a well thought out and devastating argument! However, I remain unconvinced that any evolutionary theory has provided a practical use in applied science. Perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary ... but then again, perhaps you can't.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 8:59 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Stile, posted 03-18-2019 8:42 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 152 of 1385 (849653)
03-17-2019 1:50 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.
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.

Please demonstrate how any of these uses depend on accepting the concept of UCA. I'll bet my bottom dollar you can't.

The question is whether "macro" evolutionary understanding of DNA comparisons can help clue a scientist in on fruitful areas of disease research
Does the macro-evolutionary understanding cause more and better research to necessarily happen?

These two questions are completely irrelevant to the OP, which concerns itself with practical uses in applied science, not "research". Research is useless unless it leads to a practical use.

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 104 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-09-2019 7:20 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 03-17-2019 2:24 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 153 of 1385 (849654)
03-17-2019 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
03-15-2019 11:53 AM


ringo writes:


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."

1. Pray tell. how is the concept of UCA helping scientists to "understand how life on our planet is reacting to climate change"?

2. Btw, "understanding how life on our planet is reacting to climate change" is not necessary a practical use of anything, as mere "understanding" is not a practical use per se - it could simply refer to an explanation of observations, which may amount to just useless talk and keyboard activity.

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

I can't recall claiming they don't use evolutionary biology. Thankfully, there is more to "evolutionary biology" than theory and the concept of UCA. Evolutionary biology can include practical applications of observable fact and principles of biology.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 03-15-2019 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by ringo, posted 03-17-2019 2:13 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 154 of 1385 (849655)
03-17-2019 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by AZPaul3
03-15-2019 6:17 PM


Re: Name one.
AZPaul3 writes:


Dredge writes:

I'm not aware of any evolutionary theory that has provided a practical use in medicine or in any form of applied science.


Well, you are a religionist and we already know your powers of critical thinking and logic can, shall we say, be difficult to accept so this opinion, like so many others by you and your most holy brethren holds no sway. Got any more?

If you disagree with my claim, please provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. Please note that phenomena such as common descent, natural selection, sexual selection, mutations, genetic variations, inheritance of beneficial mutuations, gene flow, genetic drift, genetic recombinations, speciation, changes in gene frequenies within a populations are not "evolutionary theory" - they are observable facts and principles of biology.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2019 6:17 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by AZPaul3, posted 03-17-2019 9:06 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 211 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-21-2019 9:02 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 155 of 1385 (849656)
03-17-2019 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Tanypteryx
03-15-2019 7:29 PM


Re: Name one.
Tanypteryx writes:

It is funny that he doesn't realize that his bullshit will never convince anyone working in any biological fields that they are doing it all wrong or that what they are learning has no value.

I can't recall saying that anyone working in any biological fields is doing it all wrong or that what they are learning has no value. You must be confusing me with someone else.

What a sad, empty life his rules would create.

My "rules" (whatever that means) would not detract from the efficacy of the biological sciences and would in fact improve it, as no biologist would waste time on useless stories about ancient history, thinking such yarns are scientifically essential to his work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-15-2019 7:29 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by edge, posted 03-17-2019 10:58 AM Dredge has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 156 of 1385 (849658)
03-17-2019 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dredge
03-17-2019 1:29 AM


Dredge writes:

I accept the same age of life on earth and the same fossil record as you do.

And do also you accept the theory of evolution that explains those fossils?


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 149 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 03-17-2019 11:22 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 173 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:20 AM Tangle has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4814
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 157 of 1385 (849660)
03-17-2019 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dredge
03-17-2019 2:07 AM


Re: Name one.
Well, you are a religionist and we already know your powers of critical thinking and logic can, shall we say, be difficult to accept so this opinion, like so many others by you and your most holy brethren holds no sway.
Got any more?
If you disagree with my claim, please provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory.

Typical creationist BS.

The point here Drudge, is that your claim is not worth debating. You are a troll ignorant of the science and the particulars of the issues. Your only purpose here is to insult evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik.

You fail, miserably, in intellect, knowledge, logic and all the other attributes necessary to debate questions with thinking human beings. You are desperate to debunk the tenets of evolution since they destroy your precious god delusions and that scares the hell out of you.

Interesting. It actually scares the hell into you which is why you feel so desperate.

Think about it. You have before you a proven hell-free existence just by embracing reality. You don't really need your gods after all.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 2:07 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by edge, posted 03-17-2019 11:14 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 174 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:28 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 158 of 1385 (849661)
03-17-2019 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dredge
03-17-2019 1:35 AM


A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.

Okay, so we can just do away with basic biological science. Got it...

What?

What?

What?

Thank you for confirming that you have no real point.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:35 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:50 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 159 of 1385 (849662)
03-17-2019 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dredge
03-17-2019 2:12 AM


Re: Name one.
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to....

Interesting. Then who wrote this:

A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.

... if not you?

You must be confusing me with someone else.

No doubt someone is hacking your account, yes? You should report it to the management.

My "rules" (whatever that means) would not detract from the efficacy of the biological sciences and would in fact improve it, as no biologist would waste time on useless stories about ancient history, thinking such yarns are scientifically essential to his work.

I'm sure that science would be pleased to take the recommendations of scientifically illiterate anti-science laymen. We'll get to work on that tomorrow.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 2:12 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:52 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 160 of 1385 (849663)
03-17-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by AZPaul3
03-17-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Name one.
The point here Drudge, is that your claim is not worth debating. You are a troll ignorant of the science and the particulars of the issues. Your only purpose here is to insult evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik.

The argument here is an intellectually vacant exercise unless one just wants to stir the pot. Suggesting that a theory does not do something it was never intended to do is just a form of trolling, not to be taken seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AZPaul3, posted 03-17-2019 9:06 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:55 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 161 of 1385 (849664)
03-17-2019 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Tangle
03-17-2019 4:00 AM


And do also you accept the theory of evolution that explains those fossils?

This question goes straight to the heart of the matter. I think I know how Dredge will answer, but will wait and see...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2019 4:00 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17894
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 162 of 1385 (849669)
03-17-2019 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dredge
03-17-2019 2:03 AM


Dredge writes:

Pray tell. how is the concept of UCA helping scientists to "understand how life on our planet is reacting to climate change"?


I presume by looking at how climate change may have affected evolution in the past. But this is a classic case of goalpost-shifting. You asked for examples of uses for the UCA. There's an example. Now you're demanding that I justify the usefulness of the example? As I said earlier in the thread, it's up to scientists to decide what's useful to them. Nobody cares whether you agree.

Dredge writes:

I can't recall claiming they don't use evolutionary biology.


Then you're shooting yourself in the foot. If they use it, it's useful.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 2:03 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 2:10 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17894
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 163 of 1385 (849670)
03-17-2019 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Phat
03-16-2019 4:53 PM


Re: Name one.
Phat writes:

I had to look up "religionist".


That's odd. I've used it often enough before.

Phat writes:

I wonder if the animal brain rules the thinking in addicted religionists?


According to Wikipedia:
quote:
The amygdala appears to play a role in binge drinking, being damaged by repeated episodes of intoxication and withdrawal.[75] Alcoholism is associated with dampened activation in brain networks responsible for emotional processing[clarification needed], including the amygdala.[76] Protein kinase C-epsilon in the amygdala is important for regulating behavioral responses to morphine, ethanol, and controlling anxiety-like behavior. The protein is involved in controlling the function of other proteins and plays a role in development of the ability to consume a large amount of ethanol.
See also Agression, Fear, Anxiety, etc. in the same article.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Phat, posted 03-16-2019 4:53 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17894
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 164 of 1385 (849671)
03-17-2019 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dredge
03-17-2019 1:50 AM


Re: Don't creationists have a universal common ancestor too?
Dredge writes:

Please demonstrate how any of these uses depend on accepting the concept of UCA.


The topic is "practical use", not "depend on".

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:50 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 2:16 AM ringo has responded

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


Message 165 of 1385 (849672)
03-17-2019 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dredge
03-17-2019 1:14 AM


This useful histoical information is confined to no higher than the level of genus - which means, as far as your work is concerned, the concept of UCA is as irrelevant and useless as a fairy tale.

I never said I used the concept of UCA in my work.

A YEC biologist could do the same work you do without being professionally comprised in any way. In fact, a biologist could believe life on earth is only 100 years old and still do the work you do.

Ok. You should get the word out. There is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists.

Yeah I know, that's because of the brainwashing and the conspiracy, but no one wants to work with idiots.

Whatever practical applications you have for "evolution" are simply practical applications of observable facts and principles of biology

The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution.

none of which depend on the concept/theory of UCA

I have never said anything depends on the concept/theory of UCA.

Since none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend in any way on the concept of UCA or evolutionary theory, the constant references to "evolution" by biologists may be redundant.

Well, I know you would like to control what biologists talk about, but you don't have that control.

You have been repeatedly told that the observable facts and principles of biology is the Theory of Evolution and none of it depends on UCA.

1. Of course you do - biologists are brainwashed to think in terms of the "unifying concept" of UCA, believing UCA is not only a fact, but is essetial scientific information.

Well, your brainwashing has failed on me. I have never thought UCA was a "unifying concept" or a fact or essential scientific information. You may believe that, but I do not.

humans had been exploiting the genetic variations in plants and animals and studying the respective common ancestries for thousands of years

Yeah right, along with imaginary entities and forces of nature. Real "applied science."

Dredge writes:

People talk about it over beers and at meetings and on field trips, but opinions seem to be spread out over several options.

No amount of rabbiting on about Darwinian folklore in bars and around campfires makes it true or practically useful.

You completely missed the point.

Dredge writes:

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

Hilarious. How do theoretical uncertainties relating to a concept that is totally irrelevant and useless in the real world amount to one of biology's "problems"?

And again, you missed the point.

Dredge writes:

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.

The concept of UCA has no "value" at all in biology, as none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend on it in any way.

And I did not say anything about UCA or claim any value, and I certainly did not say any observable facts and principles of biology depend on it.

You are the one who thinks that, not me.

The bizarre fact is, most biologists are throughly brainwashed to accept the myth that the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life (ie, the concept of UCA) is essential to "understanding" biology.

You have a bizarre belief about most biologists.

Rare is the biologist who realizes that none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend on this Darwinian folklore.

Rare is the creationist who realizes that this is creationist bullshit, but that is the bizarre fact.

2. an unverifiable story about what might have happened billions of years ago hardly qualifies as "knowledge".

Yeah, that's what unverifiable means. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

You sure spend a lot of time whining about something you claim is unimportant. Why is that?

Edited by Tanypteryx, : added a word


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 147 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:14 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 2:47 AM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 184 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 3:27 AM Tanypteryx 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 © 2020