Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
371 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (10 members, 361 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,402 Year: 1,150/23,288 Month: 1,150/1,851 Week: 274/320 Day: 46/87 Hour: 1/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 256 of 1384 (849893)
03-24-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dredge
03-24-2019 2:30 AM


Dredge writes:

Sorry, I'm still not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say, because you make use of "the evolutionary history ... recent common ancestors ... species history" of these insects and because you use "evolutionary processes and mechanisms", this means the theory of evolution has proven useful in your work? If so, you sure suffering a delusion.

Thanks for your opinion.

I was pointing out some of the ways we used evolution in our entomology work and that you are mistaken. You seem quite deluded and ignorant about science, and biology, and evolution.

Tanypteryx writes:

Gosh, your reading comprehension needs a boost.

UCA is not the theory of evolution, no matter how many times you repeat your mistaken assertion that it is.

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Wow indeed. I realize you didn't know this, but a scientific theory is based on the facts we know, not speculations, wishes, or beliefs.


As a result of my post (#182), I notice you changed your tune. You've gone from

(post 165)"The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution" (which is incorrect - ToE says all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection. To make matters worse, you are implying that a mere collection of facts adds up to a scientific theory, which is nonsense)

to

"a scientific theory is based on the facts we know" (which is correct).

Those two statements do not disagree and I have not changed my position. UCA is NOT the Theory of Evolution.

Dredge writes:

To make matters worse, you are implying that a mere collection of facts adds up to a scientific theory,

No I did not imply anything about a "mere collection of facts." I stated that a scientific theory contains all the facts we know about the subject and it never contains speculations, wishes, or beliefs, so there is nothing "mere" about it.

You have implied several times that there is "more" to the Theory of Evolution, but I don't think you said what the "more" is.

You seem to be confused that there are multiple definitions of the Theory of Evolution, but that is what happens when someone tries to distill a subject as complex as biological evolution down to a sentence or two. The definition is a brief description of the theory. The theory is all the facts, all the evidence, everything we know on the subject and no speculations, wishes, or beliefs.

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

there is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists.

Dredge writes:

Did you know that there exist professors of biology who are YECs? So much for the importance of evolutionary theory in biology!


Tanypteryx writes:

Can you name any? And where do they teach?


Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology,
Lane P. Lester, Professor of Biology.

I don't know where they teach.

Well done, you found a bunch.

What's your point? Are you saying they didn't teach their students about the Theory of Evolution in their biology classes? Are you saying they taught young earth creationism in their biology classes. Is this supposed to convince me of something?

I think my original statement stands, "there is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists."

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

I feel sorry for their students if they try to work in any biological fields.


Why? The fact that YECs can become professors of biology proves that the theory of evolution is irrelevant and useless to biology.

No it doesn't. It is not evidence of any such thing. You are clutching at straws.

Dredge writes:

What is the point of teaching students useless information?

The goal is teaching them about all the evidence of the subject, in this case, how biology works, which is the Theory of Evolution. If their professors do not strive to do that then they are failing their students. If their professors teach creationist nonsense in biology classes they are betraying science and their students.

A scientific theory is not a wild-assed guess, or wishes, or beliefs, or speculations. Using "theory" in this way is leading to your confusion.

A scientific theory is supported by all the evidence, all the facts. The Theory of Evolution is everything about how biology works. In order to refute this theory you have to present something that describes the evidence more accurately. So far, you have presented nothing that accomplishes that.

In physics, there are scientific theories that explain how the Universe works, and there are also hypotheses that have not been experimentally confirmed that are also called theories. This sometimes confuses people who don't know much about science.

Your continued mistaken use the incorrect meaning of "scientific theory" destroys your 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 241 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 2:30 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:19 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

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


Message 257 of 1384 (849894)
03-24-2019 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:54 AM


Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA


Not true. There are in fact millions of people in the world who believe that all life on earth evolved from UCA.
But apparently it's more scientific to believe that all life on earth evolved from LUCA.

O good grief, I was talking about the people (I even said "we") involved in this discussion, but beliefs have nothing to do with evidence, no matter how many hold those beliefs.

Science is about evidence, not beliefs.

Here is what I actually said in Message 217:

Tanypteryx writes:

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.

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

You have no credibility.


You may be the only person on this website who doesn't believe I should should be awarded three honorary doctorates in evolutionary biology - one from Harvard, one from MIT and one from Oxford.

Proving my point, beliefs are not evidence. You are quite a bullshitter though.

I guess you didn't know that honorary doctorates are not awarded for knowledge or accomplishments in a field. You still have no credibility.


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 249 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:54 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 258 of 1384 (849895)
03-24-2019 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:48 AM


Dredge writes:

Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution*

* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.

This demonstrates your ignorance of anything related to evolution. There is no such thing as genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.

Biological evolution is a result of individual members of a species mating and reproducing. Genera do not mate so they cannot evolve.


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 248 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:48 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 03-24-2019 5:33 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply
 Message 290 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:25 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17829
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 259 of 1384 (849896)
03-24-2019 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Tanypteryx
03-24-2019 5:20 PM


Genera do not mate....

That would be some orgy.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 5:20 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1793
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 260 of 1384 (849897)
03-24-2019 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:54 AM


You may be the only person on this website who doesn't believe I should should be awarded three honorary doctorates in evolutionary biology

I can not fathom how you arrived at that conclusion but perhaps as one deserving of an honorary doctorate in biology you could indicate ANY theory that you have found useful. Game theory maybe or Information theory or Statistical mechanics and it's influence on probabalistic math?

Is there any such thing as a useful theory? How would you use one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:54 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 261 of 1384 (849898)
03-25-2019 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:48 AM


Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.

And you are wrong --- by definition of the terms as used in the science of evolution by the scientists doing the work.

(1) A species is defined as a population of organisms capable of interbreeding, while a genera is defined as a group of species that do not interbreed, one species population with another. These species are related by having a common parent population.

(2) Evolution only occurs within a breeding population -- a species, or a part (subset) of a species that may be isolated from the rest of the species population/s.

This is how science defines the terms, and your misuse of the terms is wrong and only demonstrates ignorance and unwillingness to learn the topic you think you are discussing.

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.

Again, this is how the terms are used in the science of evolution by the scientists doing the work.

If you want to discuss any field of science, you need to learn the definitions of the terminology as used in the field and then use them correctly.

Enjoy


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 248 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:48 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:34 AM RAZD has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 262 of 1384 (849901)
03-25-2019 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:48 AM


Dredge, with clarifying bracket added by me writes:

All these items involve no more (than?) observable, demonstrable FACTS. Please point out the evolutionary theory you are claiming, as I can't see any.

As the quote states, the theory is "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."
Followed by the facts that support this explanation.

That's what theories are - explanations of "demonstrable FACTS," so of course the facts are involved.

Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection.

* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.

This is like saying:

"Btw, what I mean by "electronics" is what I consider macroelectronics* or the theory of electronics - ie, that all electronic devices use transistors.
* My definition of macroelectronics is Best Buy-Amazon crossovers or electronics above the level of multi-companies."

It's silly and makes you look a fool.
You can have your hilarious definition all you'd like. Those of us who actually understand what evolution is will simply sit back and laugh as you dance around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:48 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:38 AM Stile has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8889
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 263 of 1384 (849903)
03-25-2019 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:48 AM


LUCA
Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection.

The theory of evolution says nothing at all about weather all life evolved from a single thread of descent.

The theory is identical if there is just one line of descent or a dozen.

The only reason that the existence of a LUCA is accepted is that we haven't found any reason to think there is another line of descent evolving in parallel with the one we see. That is, there is ample evidence that all know living organisms are related very deeply in time.

If under some rock, somewhere an organism was found that was clearly not related to all the rest of us then that interesting new fact would have an impact on our understanding of the history of the evolution of life unfolding on earth but have absolutely no impact on the theory of evolution.

If you have trouble understanding that last paragraph then you need to back up a loooong way and learn a lot more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:48 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:41 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 264 of 1384 (849915)
03-26-2019 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by edge
03-23-2019 12:02 PM


Re: Pills
edge writes:

But the theory explains those facts.


Really? What evolutionary theory is that?

Why is any evolutionary theory needed to explain the facts pertaining to the action of antibiotics? One ingests a toxin (antibiotic) that kills certain bacteria in one's body - what's that got to do with the theory of evolution?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by edge, posted 03-23-2019 12:02 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by JonF, posted 03-26-2019 8:57 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 277 by edge, posted 03-26-2019 10:41 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 265 of 1384 (849916)
03-26-2019 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by ringo
03-23-2019 12:08 PM


ringo writes:

No. The common ancestor is based on observation.


If so, where was this common ancestor observed and what name did they give it? And please provide an photo of its fossil remains.

The observations happen to lead back to one root but that is not a requirement of the evolutionary process.
I agree with you here. But the "evolutionary process" is not the same as "the theory of evolution" - the "evolutionary process" is one part of "the theory of evolution".

ToE has two parts:
1. All organisms on earth are connected and related to each other, since they all descended from a common ancestor.
2. All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection (and other mechanisms, which could collectively be called, "the evolutionary process").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 03-26-2019 11:42 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 266 of 1384 (849917)
03-26-2019 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by ringo
03-23-2019 12:11 PM


On the contrary, if scientists do use it, it is useful.

Well of course, but there's a big difference between "if" and "do". What is your evidence that they "do use it"? Let me guess ... you have none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 03-26-2019 11:45 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 267 of 1384 (849918)
03-26-2019 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by RAZD
03-23-2019 1:03 PM


Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
RAZD writes:

nything we learn through science that is them used for some purpose would be applied science. This includes DNA matching used in forensics or ancestry studies. This DNA sequencing has been used to develop a genetic 'tree of life' - identifying common ancestors or their most probable common breeding ancestral populations.


This DNA "tree of life" sounds like it might involve Darwin's "tree of life" and his theory of evolution - but it doesn't; in fact, no knowledge of the theory of evoluiton is needed in order to trace and construct a useful phylogentic tree of DNA common ancestry.
Such "trees" are confined to the level of genus and are really not much different to a family tree that humans use to trace their ancestors.
Believe it or not, there are many such family trees of life recorded in the Bible and none of the authors knew about the theory of evolution!

There is no reason why a YEC biologist (ie, someone who denies the theory of evolution and the concept LUCA) could not trace and contruct a DNA 'tree of life'.

This leads to the concept of universal common ancestor

Wow, that's quite a leap of faith ... from "variations within a genus" to "all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor"!

This is like asking for a practical application to the scientific knowledge that the sky appears to be blue.

1. It is like asking if there are any practical uses for the theory of evolution - the answer appears to be "NO".
2. ... except the theory of evolution isn't "knowledge". I dare say no theory qualifies as knowledge.

You could say that (L)UCA is a practical application of the scientific knowledge of common ancestry via evolution and the occurrence of divergent speciation (which is a process that has been observed, and thus a fact known to occur)

You could, but that would be nonsense, as there's nothing remotely "practical" about a mere idea.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2019 1:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2019 4:47 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 268 of 1384 (849919)
03-26-2019 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by dwise1
03-23-2019 7:45 PM


Re: Dropping In Late To The Conversation...
dwise1 writes:

So the basic goal in those laws is not to teach creationism, but rather to prevent the teaching of evolution.

Oh, nooooo!! Imagine what would happen if no one was taught the theory of evolution! Biologists would be rendered completely useless and have to drive taxis! All crops would fail and no one could breed farm animals! No drugs could be developed! Immunization would become just a memory! No one would know that their ancestors were jelly fish!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by dwise1, posted 03-23-2019 7:45 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 269 of 1384 (849920)
03-26-2019 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by ProtoTypical
03-23-2019 6:32 AM


Re: Name one.
ProtoTypical writes:


A bit of an odd semantic victory that you are claiming here. Consider what the differences are between the principles of a process and the theory of a process. Take flight for example. The principles have always been there and exist independently of any explanation of them. We can shoot an arrow or throw a rock without having the slightest notion about why they follow the trajectory that they do. However, with the development of a theory of flight that explains and defines the principles involved we are able to predict what might happen if you strap an engine to a pair of wings.
So using only the principles of biology we could continue probing around in the dark to see what works and what doesn't. Essentially just try everything until something works for you. Similar to the way that a child approaches the world. Now then if you accumulate the observations and filter them through a non eggshell like mind you have a chance of producing a theory that can bring some direction to your studies.
An even better analogy might be that principles are like the roads and a theory is like the map. Can you think of any practical use for a map?

Excellent rhetoric! All you need to do is now is back it up by suppling an example of how the concept of LUCA or the theory of evolution has provided a practical use in applied science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-23-2019 6:32 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-26-2019 7:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 270 of 1384 (849921)
03-26-2019 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tanypteryx
11-21-2018 2:11 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tanypteryx writes:

The effects of climate change on natural populations and our domesticated organisms can often be predicted using knowledge of their evolutionary history. Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.

... none of which requires any knowledge of the theory of evolution.

"their evolutionary history" and "the science of evolutionary biology" have proven useful but neither of these or even both of them add up to the theory of evolution.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2018 2:11 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-26-2019 2:10 AM Dredge 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