Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 206 of 1385 (849791)
03-21-2019 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dredge
03-21-2019 4:11 AM


Dredge writes:
NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES".
My word you're getting desperate.
The principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution; they're not some seperate thing dissociated from it.
And of course, there are thousands of result for practical uses of evolution. For god's sake this is not an obscure area of work.
Applications of evolution - Wikipedia
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 205 by Dredge, posted 03-21-2019 4:11 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dredge, posted 03-22-2019 1:34 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 245 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:11 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 214 of 1385 (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 replied

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 250 of 1385 (849878)
03-24-2019 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Dredge
03-24-2019 2:50 AM


Dredge writes:
Hang on, let me get this straight ... you believe that a scientific theory - which could be wrong or could be changed at any time - has a higher status than pure facts, which are accepted as universal, demonstrable constants and truths and are often practically useful? And your proffer the completely useless ToE as a prime example of this "higher status"?
Yes. That's because theory explain facts. A single fossilised bone found in a landslip adds another fact to the pile of information that is the theory. Facts are basic data points, theories build information from them.
Please excuse me while I laugh - a lot! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Oh boy, only an evolutionist could come up with something that funny! Thank you!
I see I'm talking to a child.
Theory is a general concept applied across all science, it is not specific the evolutionary theory. Are all scientific theories wrong now too?
Still no answer about whether your objection to the ToE is because it contradicts your religious beliefs. Why so shy? Are you ashamed of the 'fact'.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 242 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 2:50 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:15 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 251 of 1385 (849879)
03-24-2019 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:11 AM


Dredge writes:
2. The terms, "principles of evolution" and "the theory of evolution" are not interchangable as they are fundamentally different things. The "principles of evolution" are facts and the "theory of evolution" is simply an idea. So your claim that the practical uses for "evolutionary principles" you quoted (in post 183) are the same as practical uses for the "theory of evolution" is incorrect.
The principles of evolution are derived from the theory. They're ideas drawn from it with general use. I'm pleased that you accept them as facts. (But I suspect that you'll change your mind when/if you finally understand what you're saying.)

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 245 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:11 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:17 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 252 of 1385 (849880)
03-24-2019 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:24 AM


Dredge writes:
On third thoughts, I recant that statement,
In fact, I think you simply realised the consequences of what you'd just said and now have to backtrack.
The part I missed says,
"The theory (of evolution) has two main points ... 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 ... (which is) supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology".
In other words, according to this definition, "since all life on Earth is connected and related to each other", the theory of evolution cannot be separated from the concept that all life on earth evolved from LUCA.
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.
Of course course the ToE and LUCA are linked, you keep being told that the *principle* of common ancestry is a necessary conclusion of the ToE.
Therefore. if there is no practical use for the concept of LUCA, there is no practical use for the theory of evolution.
That's the worst logic error I've seen for a while. Can you see why?
Btw, thank you for going to the trouble of providing the scientific information contained in your post.
You're welcome, it's just a pity that it was wasted on you.
Still no answer to my question about whether your objsection to the ToE is based on a presumed contradiction of your religious beliefs.

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 246 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:24 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:29 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


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 replied

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(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 replied

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 307 of 1385 (850015)
03-28-2019 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Porkncheese
03-28-2019 12:05 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
P&C writes:
There is real science that is applied in practice like most branches of Biology and Physics. Based on knowledge and understanding it holds an extremely high standard of evidence that is falsifiable.
'Real' science eh? Anyway, fyi the ToE is based on a very high standard of evidence and is very easily falsifiable. I would tell you how if I thought you had the slightest interest.
And no sooner did Louis Pasteur killed the theory in 1859 did theoretical biolgy jump straight into a totally new theory and preaching it as fact. Darwins "Origin of Species" was also released in 1859.
You realise I suppose that rational examination of our natural world didn't really kick off until the Enlightenment (clue in the name) in the 18th century? Up until then and for at least a century or two afterwards they gradually debunked the religious and supersticious baloney swimming around in ignorant people's heads. Since then it's been a war of attrition.
This is why people like you have to talk about ideas, mistakes and frauds from 150 years ago as if that had much relevance today. Their only relevance is that science - unlike religion - adapts its ideas according to the facts as they are uncovered.
This time they went even further producing frauds like the pitdown man in a sad and desperate attempt to make the theory stick. Pitdown man was the basis of this pseudoscience for over 100 years before it was embarrassingly uncovered as a deliberate hoax.
So here we have another century-old story presented as evidence against science. It's really bizarre as, in fact, it's a perfect example of the scientific process behaving as it should and exposing the fraud itself. For the record, the fraud was exposed in 1953, not 100 years later. Why do you guys always have to get everything wrong? I suppose it's because you prefer your own 'facts'.
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

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 304 by Porkncheese, posted 03-28-2019 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:08 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 330 of 1385 (850104)
03-31-2019 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Dredge
03-31-2019 8:34 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
the Cambrian explosion still represents evidence of creation and evidence against ToE.
How does that work then? There's nothing about the Cambrian explosion - or radiation, as science normally refers to it as - that suggests supernatural sources. Life did not start there nor did is remain static thereafter.
Yes, the appearance of animals with hard bits was so sudden it is referred to as an "explosion".
The 'explosion' lasted 25 million years - it was not a sudden event.
And another odd thing happened during this "explosion" - virtually all the animal pyhla that have ever existed appeared. Funny that.
Funnier way for a creator to work it seems to me, he didn't start work in the Cambrian, that was billions of years earlier and he omitted very large animal groups from the Cambrian - insects, fish, lizards, birds and, rather importantly, mammals. Odd that if we were the sole point of the excercise. Also it's not quite what's written in your book is it?

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 318 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 8:34 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 2:26 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 347 of 1385 (850145)
04-02-2019 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Dredge
04-02-2019 2:20 AM


Dredge writes:
I understand your point, but the definition of ToE I supplied takes the concept of common descent further - to say that "all life on Earth is connected and related to each other"...
I'm going to pretend that you have a genuine confusion. All life on earth *is* related to each other.
We have never found an organism that isn't made by the sugar molecules - DNA and RNA. We can see by examining the genes that these molecules build how closely related any organism is to another. We can do this with any living organism. So we can directly observe the relatedness of all living organisms.
The ToE was developed 100 years before the discovery of DNA, yet it predicted that life shared common ancestry. Had we found that some organisms did not contain the same molecules to build genes the ToE would have needed to be modified to take this into account. If it couldn't it would have had to be scrapped altogether.
...is to say all life evolved from a common ancestor - ie, UCA.
The ToE does *not* say this. If it had said that you would have quoted it instead of inferring it yourself. It *does* say that life has common ancestry. It *may* also mean that there was a single, original, UCA but it is equally likely that there was not.
It is also certain - in my mind anyway - that we will never know. This is because it happened more than 3bn years ago and involved nothing more than free-floating chemicals. I've shown you the models of how at microbe level things get very messy with the transfer of genes laterally between species. And at this level of life the definition of species is blurred and there are arguments about what 'life' itself means. Biology is messy, it does not conform to your need for bumper sticker definitions.
"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"
And this is a reasonable statement. All life on earth is related. We can demonstrate it. What's more, because life shares common ancestry we can look back in time and see how it evolved. This implies a UCA. But a UCA is not a necessary part of the theory, nor is it a likely one. This is why science talks mostly of LUCA not UCA.

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 338 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:20 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:07 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 349 of 1385 (850147)
04-02-2019 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Dredge
04-02-2019 3:08 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:
Er, no; that's not quite right. There are millions of science-savvy Christians today who - unlike most Christians who lived before the twentieth century - accept that the "six days" of creation is not a literal description of history.
It's more than time to tell us what *you* actually believe so that we can better understand your problem with the ToE.

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 345 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:08 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:12 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 356 of 1385 (850154)
04-02-2019 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dredge
04-02-2019 3:54 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
1. All the evidence points to evolution? Oh yeah ... except for the gaps, missing links and the sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms!
Oh, and let's not forget all those major morphological changes that cannot be explained by evolution without producing fits of laughter (for example, how a double-circulation heart evolved from a single-circulation heart and how whales evolved from a rodent).
It's difficult discussing evolution with people who have never studied it and have religious reasons for dismissing it out of hand. They have 'learned' things about the theory that are either partial or flat out wrong and can't seem to 'unlearn' them.
The existence of gaps in the fossil record is not a reason to dismiss the ToE. There are sufficient fossils to validate it and have been for over a hundred years. Gaps are being filled as more fossils are found but the record will never be complete. (And even if it was complete - impossible - those with religious convictions would find reason to object anyway.)
Nothing appeared suddenly fully formed. The Cambrian lasted 25m years.
Whales did not evolve from rats - both are modern species.
And so on.
I can't see how we can make progress if you cling to these lies and lack of understanding of what the science actually tells us.
You might at least ponder why science would say the things you wrongly say they say, yet still claim the validity of the theory?
Everything you've talked about and misconstrued has been the discovery of science. Your team has added nothing at all to the conversation. Why do you think misquoting and misunderstanding real scientists that have developed the ToE is going to get you anywhere at all except more confused?

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 352 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:54 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 365 of 1385 (850170)
04-02-2019 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
04-02-2019 12:55 PM


Faith writes:
Has anything been said claiming the ToE has something useful to offer? I've skimmed the thread and don't see anything. Lots of side issues, lots of "noise," but the ToE remains as useless as ever to science or life.
First, the OP is about the UCA, not the ToE. The UCA is a simple and simplistic prediction/conclusion from the principle of common ancestry. Whether it has a use or not is irrelevant. It's scientific knowledge which is useful for it's own sake.
Second, of course he's been given uses for the ToE, but he prefers to bugger about with words instead of attempting to understand what it is that he disagrees with.
Tangle writes:
As it happens a 5 second google and google scholar search produces thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution. Here's the first that popped up
quote:
Abstract
Evolutionary principles are now routinely incorporated into medicine and agriculture. Examples include the design of treatments that slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, and the design of breeding programs that maximize crop yield or quality.
Evolutionary principles are also increasingly incorporated into conservation biology, natural resource management, and environmental science. Examples include the protection of small and isolated populations from inbreeding depression, the identification of key traits involved in adaptation to climate change, the design of harvesting regimes that minimize unwanted life-history evolution, and the setting of conservation priorities based on populations, species, or communities that harbor the greatest evolutionary diversity and potential.
The adoption of evolutionary principles has proceeded somewhat independently in these different fields, even though the underlying fundamental concepts are the same. We explore these fundamental concepts under four main themes: variation, selection, connectivity, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems.

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 363 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 12:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 367 of 1385 (850180)
04-02-2019 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-02-2019 1:57 PM


Faith writes:
But there is no usefulness for either the UCA or the ToE. Which you go on to acknowledge without really acknowledging it
I do not acknowledge that the ToE has no uses. Obviously, as I then go on to demonstrate that it has.
But that's an evasion of course because the topic is its practical usefulness.
Sure, but the topic originator is confused, he does not understand what the UCA or the ToE is, so it's a silly, pointless point. The UCA is a possible conclusion of the ToE not a necessary component of it.
Zip zilch nada for anything to do with the UCA or the ToE.
Stop conflating the UCA with the ToE, they are not synonyms.
There are no practical uses for the ToE so he can't have been given any.
Yet despite that, he's been given them. How weird is that, it must mean that you're wrong again.
Yes, "evolutionary principles" ARE routinely incorporated into all kinds of scientific biological discussions,
Sorry for the inconvenience.
This again needs no more knowledge than the common understanding of how individual species change from generation to generation, which is microevolution which has zip to do with the ToE or the UCA.
As has been explained multiple times, macroevolution is just microevolution plus time. And of course, microevolution is evolution as described by the ToE.
Science is hampered by this confusion of the ToE with microevolution or simple variation within a species built into every genome.
Get you, an ignoramous that thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that the bible is literally true with no scientific training whatsoever at any level explaining to scientists that they're confused. Ah, bless you.

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 366 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 8:48 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 409 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:26 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 372 of 1385 (850192)
04-03-2019 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
04-02-2019 8:48 PM


Faith writes:
You say dredgie got plenty of examples of the ToE's usefulness but name not one.
He did get plenty of examples and I showed you them, he also got a link to a science paper (which he didn't read) and to the wiki page full of applications of the ToE. The first set of examples in that link referred to this note containing more references. It is not hard to find this sort of information.
quote:
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.
Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.
Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).
Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).
The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).
Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).
Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.
Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.
Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.
References:
Arnold, Frances H. 2001. Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature 409: 253-257.
Barbrook, Adrian C., Christopher J. Howe, Norman Blake, and Peter Robinson, 1998. The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394: 839.
Benner, Steven A. 2001. Natural progression. Nature 409: 459.
Branca, Malorye. 2002. Sorting the microbes from the trees. Bio-IT Bulletin, Apr. 07. http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/040702_report186.html
Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
Cherry, J. R., and A. L. Fidantsef. 2003. Directed evolution of industrial enzymes: an update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 438-443.
Conover, D. O. and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96. See also pp. 31-32.
Cummings, C. A. and D. A. Relman. 2002. Microbial forensics-- "cross-examining pathogens". Science 296: 1976-1979.
Dunn, M., A. Terrill, G. Reesink, R. A. Foley and S. C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072-2075. See also: Gray, Russell. 2005. Pushing the time barrier in the quest for language roots. Science 309: 2007-2008.
Eisen, J. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
Futuyma, D. J. 1995. The uses of evolutionary biology. Science 267: 41-42.
Galvani, Alison P. 2003. Epidemiology meets evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3): 132-139.
Gaschen, B. et al.. 2002. Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science 296: 2354-2360.
Howe, Christopher J. et al. 2001. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 17: 147-152.
Marczyk, Adam. 2004. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation
Nesse, Randolph M. and George C. Williams. 1994. Why We Get Sick. New York: Times Books.
Relman, David A. 1999. The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science 284: 1308-1310.
Searls, D., 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. Nature - Not Found
Sutherland, William J., 2002. Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature 419: 265-266.
Taylor, Sean V., Peter Kast, and Donald Hilvert. 2001. Investigating and engineering enzymes by genetic selection. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 40: 3310-3335.
Vogel, Gretchen. 1998. HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science 282: 851-852.
CA215: Practical uses of evolution.
Sorry, what I said is true.
Clearly not.

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 368 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 8:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 1:25 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 410 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:29 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024