Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
54 online now:
dew009, driewerf, Michael MD, Tangle (4 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,920 Year: 3,566/14,102 Month: 186/321 Week: 2/44 Day: 2/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 286 of 1385 (849971)
03-28-2019 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Tangle
03-24-2019 5:12 AM


Tangle writes:

Ok, so now you've gone from UCA to LUCA, that's not a small change you know? I doubt that you understand the point but we'll let it go for now.

Actually, the use of "UCA" or "LUCA" is irrelevant as far as the OP is concerned - I could have avoid referring to either of them by simply asking for practical uses in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from microbes.

you keep being told that the *principle* of common ancestry is a necessary conclusion of the ToE.

That depends on one's definition of ToE. For example, according to the following definition, UCA is not a conclusion of ToE, but is an integral part of it:

"The theory (of evolution) has two main points, says Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "all life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection"
- livescience.com, "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?".

What is your definition of ToE?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 5:12 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2019 4:21 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 287 of 1385 (849972)
03-28-2019 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
03-24-2019 11:34 AM


edge writes:

Okay, so you reference a statement from Darwin made 175 years ago.

I take your point. I could have reduced that quote to "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted". But I left the reference to Darwin in there in the hope that the reader might put one and one together and realize that Darwin believed in evolution despite knowing how poorly the fossil record supported his theory.

Have you ever entertained the notion that we might have learned a few things since then?

Oh, so you disgree with this part of the quote: "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted"? If so, I suggest you take that up with Wikipedia.

Why didn't they say that "evolution is virtually non-existent in the fossil record" and not 'gradualism'?

Probably because the fossil record reveals an overall pattern of evolution.

So, why did Gould and Eldredge remain confident of the theory of evolution after discovering that gradualism is not present in the fossil record?

A likely explanation would be that they had a priori belief that evolution is true (probably due to some personal philosophical conviction)- regardless of the inconventient truths the fossil record presents to that belief. Evolution is also the best scientific explanation for the fossil record.

My impression is that someone is lying to you and that leaves some YEC website as a prime suspect.

Please explain.

Again, who cares? We are discussing evolution as an explanation for the fossil record, not gradualism.

Gould considered the fossil record an "embarrassment" to Darwin's theory of gradualism, but I think the fossil record is an embarrassement to evolution.

A quote from a band of rabid anti-evolutionists shows that evolution does not explain the fossil record.

No, it shows that many highly-intelligent folks are willing to believe in evolution despite the serious problems the fossil record presents to this belief.

And you do realize that in the geological record, suddenness can occur over millions of years, do you not? The fact is that fossil communities evolved over time. What is your explanation?

There's no getting around the fact that finding organisms "already in an advanced state of evolution ... without any evolutionary history" (Dawkins) doesn't represent evidence of ToE; on the contrary, it represents evidence that ToE is false.

Even Darwin understood that there were gaps and he even proposed an explanation that holds water today.

I presume you mean that the fossil record is hitherto complete. So the ToE is based on fossil evidence that is merely hoped for, and doesn't actually exist. Got it.

your alternative to evolution

Despite the problems that the fossil record presents to ToE, ToE it is still the best scientific explanation of the fossil record ... not that means anything to me, as I believe science is incapable of explaining the fossil record.

Evolution explains all this.

Translation: "Evolution ATTEMPTS to explain all this."

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 03-24-2019 11:34 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by edge, posted 03-28-2019 9:50 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 288 of 1385 (849973)
03-28-2019 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by JonF
03-24-2019 12:40 PM


JonF writes:

The Panda's Thumb is a strongly pro-evolution site. But that quote does not appear on that site. It appears to be fr Gould. My phone is almost dead so I can't chase it further now.

That quote is from p.182 of Gould's book, The Panda's Thumb. At least, that what my copy says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by JonF, posted 03-24-2019 12:40 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 289 of 1385 (849974)
03-28-2019 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Tanypteryx
03-24-2019 3:02 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

I was pointing out some of the ways we used evolution in our etomology work and that you are mistaken.

In that case, it is YOU who is mistaken - twice:

1. Read the OP: It doesn't ask for practical uses for "evolution" - it asks for practical uses for the concept of UCA.

2. In order to establish that I am "mistaken", you need to provide a practical use in applied science for the concept of UCA - which you have hitherto failed to do.

You seem quite deluded and ignorant about science, and biology, and evolution.

I already knew that there are many practical uses for "evolution", because "evolution" can simply refer to the mechanisms of evolution, which are also fundamental and useful mechanisms of biology - which exist independent of ToE, btw.

UCA is NOT the Theory of Evolution.

Show me where I ever said "UCA is the theory of evolution".

No I did not imply anything about a "mere collection of facts."

You could have fooled me. You stated that "The observed facts and principles of biology ARE the theory of evolution" - this implies that facts alone add up to a sceintific theory.

I stated that a scientific theory contains all the facts about the subject.

Which contradicts "The observed facts and principles of biology are the theory of evolution."

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.

"The theory (of evolution) has two main points, says Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on earth is connected and related to each other", and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection" - livescience.com, "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"
Clearly, according to this definition, there is "more" to ToE than just facts and principles of biology.

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.

Oh yes, ToE is so important and essential to understanding "how biology works" that one can totally reject and ignore it and stilll become a professor of biology!! So funny!!

The Theory of Evolution is everything about how biology works.

Yep ... so much so that not a single practical application of applied biology owes its existence to ToE!! More funny!!

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.

That's odd; I didn't realize the aim of the OP was to refute the theory of evolution.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 3:02 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 290 of 1385 (849975)
03-28-2019 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Tanypteryx
03-24-2019 5:20 PM


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

How did birds evolve from dinosaurs, for example, if a species from one genus didn't evolve into a species from another genus (ie, without genus-genus evolution)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 5:20 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2019 8:45 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 291 of 1385 (849976)
03-28-2019 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by RAZD
03-25-2019 1:49 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
You have clearly misinterpreted my terms "genus-genus evolution" and "evolution above the level of species".

By "genus-genus evolution" I mean an interval of evolution that begins with a species within one genus and ends with a species within another genus. For example, a fish to an amphibian, an ape to a human being, or a whale to a submarine.

By "evolution above the level of species" is perhaps a clumsy way of saying the same thing: evolution above a species evolving into another species within the same genus - ie, a species from one genus evolving into a species of a different genus - ie, genus-genus evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2019 1:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2019 10:12 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 292 of 1385 (849977)
03-28-2019 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Stile
03-25-2019 8:48 AM


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.

Perhaps you have a point. But the quote doesn't say it presents a "schematic representation of the THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection", nor does it anywhere use the word "theory". So what is this theory that you claim it explains?

(... not that is has anything to do with the OP - understanding antibiotic resistance doesn't require any knowledge of the concept of UCA.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Stile, posted 03-25-2019 8:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Stile, posted 03-28-2019 8:35 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 293 of 1385 (849978)
03-28-2019 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by NosyNed
03-25-2019 10:04 AM


Re: LUCA
NosyNed writes:

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

That depends on one's definition of ToE. What's yours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by NosyNed, posted 03-25-2019 10:04 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by vimesey, posted 03-28-2019 5:15 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 300 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2019 9:18 AM Dredge has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8169
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 294 of 1385 (849980)
03-28-2019 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dredge
03-28-2019 12:17 AM


Dredge writes:

Yet you claim that the practical uses of the "principles of evolution" (in the quote in post 183) are also practical uses for the "theory of evolution".
So, what are you trying to tell me? ... that the principles DERIVED from a theory are THE SAME as the theory?

Without the Theory of Evolution there can be no principles of evolution. Do you intend to continue playing your word games indefinitely or have you anything of substance to add?


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 285 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:17 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8169
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 295 of 1385 (849981)
03-28-2019 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Dredge
03-28-2019 12:29 AM


Dredge writes:

I could have avoid referring to either of them by simply asking for practical uses in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from microbes.

And you would have got the same answers. Scientific knowledge has no requirement to be of practical value. But you still don't understand the difference between UCA and LUCA. The former implies a single source from which all life evolved (which may or not be true but we almost certainly will never know), the latter is the last we can go back to, it's predecessors being extinct.

That depends on one's definition of ToE.

No it doesn't, it depends on understanding the theory of evolution. That requires you study it rather than attempt to twist words into shapes that their originators didn't intend.

For example, according to the following definition, UCA is not a conclusion of ToE, but is an integral part of it

The principle of common descent is the integral part of the theory of evolution not the UCA. UCA is a conclusion/prediction derived from the principle of common descent.


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 286 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:20 AM Tangle has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 296 of 1385 (849983)
03-28-2019 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dredge
03-28-2019 1:41 AM


Re: LUCA
That depends on one's definition of ToE. What's yours?

Oh good ! We get to invent our own definitions.

Let's see how that works.

One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that on 27 March 2019, a race of blue leprechauns with pink spots will rise up and occupy Jerusalem. I know this because I have studied the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and that is what it says. All of the experts are wrong and I am right. Since Jersualem is still unoccupied by blue leprechauns with pink spots, the whole basis of Christianity is undermined.

Now, is that a legitimate argument against Christianity, or does it just make me look like a pillock ?

Edited by vimesey, : Typo


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:41 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Dogmafood, posted 03-28-2019 8:01 AM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 329 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 11:09 AM vimesey has responded

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 297 of 1385 (849988)
03-28-2019 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by vimesey
03-28-2019 5:15 AM


Re: LUCA
blue leprechauns with pink spots

Come on man, everybody knows that leprechauns are green.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by vimesey, posted 03-28-2019 5:15 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 298 of 1385 (849989)
03-28-2019 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Dredge
03-28-2019 1:38 AM


Dredge writes:

Perhaps you have a point. But the quote doesn't say it presents a "schematic representation of the THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection", nor does it anywhere use the word "theory". So what is this theory that you claim it explains?

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

Of course the word "theory" doesn't exist in the description of the theory.
To describe something by using the word you're describing is to make a circular description.

When describing a car, you don't say "it's a car with an engine."
When describing a theory, you don't say "it's a THEORY of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."

Neither actually describes what "car" or "theory" is because they use the same word.

You can, however, describe an example of a car as "a 4 wheeled vehicle with an engine."
Just as you can, also, describe an example of a theory as "a schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection."

(... not that it has anything to do with the OP - understanding antibiotic resistance doesn't require any knowledge of the concept of UCA.)

(Except, of course, that if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself. But sure, buddy - you do you.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:38 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:24 AM Stile has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 299 of 1385 (849991)
03-28-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Dredge
03-28-2019 1:25 AM


How did birds evolve from dinosaurs, for example, ...

Birds ARE dinosaurs, the last remaining branch.

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 290 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:25 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:58 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 300 of 1385 (849993)
03-28-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dredge
03-28-2019 1:41 AM


The Theory of Evolution
That depends on one's definition of ToE. What's yours?

Mine is simple:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

If a species is observed to change over generations (anagenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the expressed hereditary traits (genes, morphology, development), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread within the breeding population in following generations.

If a clade is observed to form (cladogenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) independent evolution (anagenesis) within each daughter population. We can also predict the formation of the clade will fall within a nested hierarchy pattern.

These predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

You will note that all evolution takes place at the species level within breeding populations:

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.

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

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.

No mention of LUCA.

Enjoy

General references and further study resources

  1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
  2. U of Michigan on-line course material
  3. Talk Origins Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

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 293 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:41 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:26 AM RAZD 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 © 2021