|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: The principles of evolution are derived from the theory. I can't see how this supports your argument. One presumes that since "the principles of evolution are derived from the theory (of evolution)", then the "principles of evolution" are not the same as the "theory of evolution". 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? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes: What happens if you stop taking the antibiotic when the symptoms disappear but you've got plenty of antibiotic left? Hint: the answer begins with "e". I can't see what evolution has to do with the action of antibiotics, but antibiotic resistance is "evolution".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I guess so - the theory of evolution can simply mean the mechanisms of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
What is the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes: Could be. The problem is that if one believed such an idea, one would look for independent evidence of such 'progressive creation'. If one were a real scientist. I don't confine reality to the very limited parameters of science. Therefore I consider progressive creation to be a realistic explanation for the fossil record.
" .... as though ..." Interesting choice of words, don't you think? What does Dawkins go on to say? Does he then reject the theory of evolution? Are you kidding? - Dawkins is an atheist; an atheist has no choice but to believe in evolution. In which case, the evidence for evolution is almost superfluous. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
Oh, in that case what you mean is, the common ancestor is a theory based on observations.
I said that the common ancestor is "based on observation", not that it has been observed. No. The ToE is about how one species evolves into another. The common ancestor is not a necessary part of the ToE. from evolution.berkeley.edu ("Understanding Evolution"): "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene ” or more precisely and technically, allele ” frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance ... The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor." from Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Evolution (is a) theory in biology postulating that the variious types of plants, animals and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishing differences are due to modifications in successive generations ... The virtually infinte variations of life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shewlike creatures that lived more than 150 millions years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 millions years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification." from livescience.com, "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?" ""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" " Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes: "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." Message 25If you dispute that statement, it's up to you to show that it's wrong. Sorry; that's not how science works - you made a claim and it's up to you to substantiate it with evidence. It's obvious you don't have any, so that's all I need to know.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024