Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
144 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1793
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 211 of 1384 (849804)
03-21-2019 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dredge
03-17-2019 2:07 AM


Re: Name one.
Dredge writes:

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.

There has to be enough acidic irony in that quote to start a food chain.

Tell me Dredge, is God anything like a theoretical UCA? I mean without any of the supporting evidence.


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 219 by Dredge, posted 03-23-2019 1:34 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 212 of 1384 (849806)
03-22-2019 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tanypteryx
03-20-2019 1:14 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

And there we have it, the only reason for your pathetic attempt here is because you clearly believe it really does rule out the existence of your god.


Can anyone explain how he came to this curious conclusion?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-20-2019 1:14 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 213 of 1384 (849808)
03-22-2019 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Tangle
03-21-2019 4:50 AM


The problem is, there are different definitions of the "theory of evolution" and some of them don't include anything about macroevolution or UCA; they merely mention principles of biology that no one disputes.
For example, livescience.com offers this defintion:"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.". In this sense, "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" and "principles of evolution" (and "microevolution") all refer to the same thing.

So on second thoughts, I'm probably barking up the wrong tree and should go back to my original "UCA" argument expressed in the OP.

As far as I know, googling "practical uses for the theory of evolution" comes up with nothing. But googling "practical uses for evolution/priciples of evolution" produces many such uses. I find that interesting.

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.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2019 4:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2019 3:23 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 215 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2019 10:36 AM Dredge has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 214 of 1384 (849810)
03-22-2019 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dredge
03-22-2019 1:34 AM


Dredge writes:

The problem is, there are different definitions of the "theory of evolution"

The 'problem' is that the ToE can be explained in several ways, which is actually not a problem, but a benefit.

and some of them don't include anything about macroevolution or UCA; they merely mention principles of biology that no one disputes.

You'll find that religionists like you dispute all manner of things about evolutionary theory from nothing evolved at all (YEC biblical literalists) to evolution happened the way science says it happened but at some magical moment god interfered and stuck a pre-frontal cortex and a soul into an ape (Catholics)

You might be surprised to hear that I completed two terms of degree level study of evolutionary theory without hearing the term "macroevolution'. It seems to be a distinction that religionists feel may provide them with a loophole while scientists simply say that “Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales”.

For example, livescience.com offers this defintion:"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.". In this sense, "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" and "principles of evolution" (and "microevolution") all refer to the same thing.

Yeh, well who would have thought that the principles of evolutary theory come from the theory of evolution?

So on second thoughts, I'm probably barking up the wrong tree and should go back to my original "UCA" argument expressed in the OP.

By the number of edits necessary in such a short post I can see you struggled with that, but still, congratulations, your ideas *can* be influenced by facts. That happens rarely with religionists here.

As for UCA, that's been answered - the UCA is a prediction/conclusion of a simple interpretaion of the ToE. If you think of an 'imaginary tree of life, you would place the UCA at bottom of the trunk. But equally you could have a root system under it that works in the opposite direction - from many to one - which then forms many again. Other complexities arise with the probability of horizontal gene transfer between micro-organisms.

That's why it is usually referred to by scientists as LUCA (Last UCA). And to repeat, it doesn't need a practical use to be true. Knowledge is valuable. And interesting. Period.

As far as I know, googling "practical uses for the theory of evolution" comes up with nothing. But googling "practical uses for evolution/priciples of evolution" produces many such uses. I find that interesting.

Having accepted above that the principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution, that's a retrograde step.

However

quote:
No results found for "practical uses for the theory of evolution".

Results for practical uses for the theory of evolution (without quotes):

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.



Applications of evolution - Wikipedia

Is your test for whether evolution is true that google must respond to only the exact word string you enter?

And, your are still ducking the question of whether you dispute the ToE for religious reasons.


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 213 by Dredge, posted 03-22-2019 1:34 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2019 7:11 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 246 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:24 AM Tangle has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4806
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 215 of 1384 (849813)
03-22-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dredge
03-22-2019 1:34 AM


As far as I know, googling "practical uses for the theory of evolution" comes up with nothing. But googling "practical uses for evolution/priciples of evolution" produces many such uses. I find that interesting.

Understanding the internet and google, how they work, from where their data flows, this is not at all surprising. There are a lot of useless uninformed treatments in such a list of results.

The key is swamping through the chaff to find the legitimately knowledgeable works, then, the hard part for religionist creationists, is reading, studying, comprehending that body of knowledge.

I get the impression you don't even look at the results. You scan the titles, scan a few words looking for a bone to pick, but eschew the scholastic rigor of understanding the data and the concepts the various sources, in concert, seek to convey.

That is being intellectually lazy. As a result you have no actual knowledge of the subject. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dredge, posted 03-22-2019 1:34 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:33 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 216 of 1384 (849815)
03-22-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dredge
03-20-2019 1:43 AM


Dredge writes:

Pray tell ... how has evolutionary theory proven useful in medicine? Please provide a specific example.

You're hilarious.
"Pray tell... how have transistors proven useful in electronic devices? Please provide a specific example."

Oh my, the difficulty... however will I find one?

There were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:

quote:
Medicine

Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[9]


It must be difficult to talk, with all those feet in your mouth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:43 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:48 AM Stile has responded

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


(1)
Message 217 of 1384 (849823)
03-22-2019 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dredge
03-21-2019 3:10 AM


This post of yours completely destroys any credibility you may have had.

Dredge writes:

I doubt if ToE reflects reality as, for starters, it does a very poor job of explaining the many gaps,

Good grief. What gaps are you talking about? Be specific.

So, you are criticizing the Theory of Evolution because it doesn't explain everything? Really?

Dredge writes:

distinct lack of transitiionals

There is no "distinct lack of transitionals." Museums are packed with transitional fossils hundreds and hundreds of them. Thousands of papers and books are written describing new ones every year.

That you would say this shows you have a distinct lack of knowledge on this subject.

Dredge writes:

and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record.

Do you even think about what you write?

In what reality would you expect partly formed organisms to be running around? Are you daft?

Dredge writes:

Therefore a mere theory is not knowledge, as scientific theories come and go, as you well know.

Right there you demonstrate that you don't know jack shit about any science.

There are several different, unrelated ways that "theory" is used today.

1. A theory is a wild-assed guess, used by uninformed people like you, who don't know anything about science.

2. In science, a theory includes all the evidence, all the observations, all the facts about that field of science. As new things about that subject are learned they are added to the theory. If evidence is discovered that contradicts the theory or part of it, then the theory must be abandoned or corrected. Scientific theories can be used to make predictions.

3. In physics, hypotheses are often called theories even though they have not been experimentally confirmed.

People who have studied science and understand how it works should know about these different usages of the word theory.

The Theory of Evolution has stood for 150 years. There have been numerous modifications and corrections, but anyone who refers to it as a mere theory has no chance of refuting it.

Dredge writes:

The fossil record is knowledge, but the theory of evolution that attempts to explain the fossil record is not knowledge.

No, the fossil record is evidence that life has evolved over the course of history on this planet.

Dredge writes:

And a belief, no matter how strongly held, is not necessarily knowledge.

This is true. That is why science relies on evidence rather than strongly held beliefs.

Dredge writes:

You may be 110% convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, but that doesn't qualify it as knowledge, as no one can demonstrate that it is the truth.

You have been repeatedly told that no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, because there is not enough evidence to make that conclusion.

Why do you keep claiming that's what we think, even after we repeatedly say we don't?

I know this is your favorite delusion, but to keep repeating it is just plain stupid.

You have no credibility.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dredge, posted 03-21-2019 3:10 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:54 AM Tanypteryx has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4806
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 218 of 1384 (849828)
03-22-2019 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
03-22-2019 3:23 AM


But equally you could have a root system under it that works in the opposite direction

Praise the Noodlyness!

Ramen.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2019 3:23 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 219 of 1384 (849833)
03-23-2019 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by ProtoTypical
03-21-2019 9:02 PM


Re: Name one.
Sorry, but my fragile, egg-shell mind has no idea what you're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-21-2019 9:02 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-23-2019 6:32 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 220 of 1384 (849834)
03-23-2019 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by edge
03-21-2019 10:49 AM


edge writes:

So, let me get this straight. You don't think that the theory of evolution was useful in developing various 'principles of evolution', which ARE useful. Is that correct?


The "principles of evolution" are the (useful) mechanisms of evolution - mutations and natural selection, for example. Mutations and natural selection are observable, demonstrable facts - ie, they exist regardless of any scientific theory based on them, such as ToE. The (useful) facts came first, then the (useless) theory.

Human beings have been making practical use of the "principles of evolution" in animal and plant breeding for thousands of years. They didn't need any "theory of evolution" to do so.

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 207 by edge, posted 03-21-2019 10:49 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by edge, posted 03-23-2019 11:15 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 221 of 1384 (849835)
03-23-2019 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by NosyNed
03-20-2019 12:22 PM


Re: Pills
Every pamphlet with antibiotics warns you to finish the whole series. That is evolutionary theory in action.

Which "evolutionary theory" might that be? I thought antibiotics worked according to facts, not a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2019 12:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by edge, posted 03-23-2019 12:02 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 222 of 1384 (849836)
03-23-2019 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by dwise1
03-20-2019 11:27 AM


dwise1 writes:

Does this mean that you have broken ranks with your fellow creationists? That you have realized the basic fact that there is no conflict between evolution and divine creation?

Science implies that the (pre-Adamic) Genesis creation account is not literal.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2019 11:27 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 223 of 1384 (849837)
03-23-2019 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ringo
03-20-2019 12:33 PM


ringo writes:

But evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily imply UCA

Yes it does. That's basically what ToE is - all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 03-20-2019 12:33 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:08 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 224 of 1384 (849838)
03-23-2019 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ringo
03-20-2019 12:42 PM


ringo writes:

Climate change is a specific example

In other words, you can't back up your claim (that the evolutionary history of the world has proven practically useful in tackling climate change) with any facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 03-20-2019 12:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:11 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 225 of 1384 (849839)
03-23-2019 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
03-20-2019 12:48 PM


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

Don't be silly. I can think of a practical use for potato chips. That doesn't mean I depend on them

"none of the progress made in biology DEPENDS even slightly on a theory"

Louis Bouroune ( Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, 1957, p. 79. (emphasis mine)

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 03-20-2019 12:48 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:15 PM Dredge has not yet 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