Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
20 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 19 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,958 Year: 3,604/14,102 Month: 224/321 Week: 40/44 Day: 0/35 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 301 of 1385 (849995)
03-28-2019 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dredge
03-28-2019 12:56 AM


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.

Perhaps. More likely, he understood that the fossil record is actually more than the known part of the fossil record. It really wouldn't take a genius to figure that out.

Or we might say, sure, that was the status of the known fossil record 175 years ago.

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.

Wikipedia probably understands that 'sudden' in geological terms is not 'sudden' in human colloquial terms. Again, this is grade-school stuff.

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.

Or it could be that they considered their theory of punctuated equilibrium to be a characteristic of evolution.

How about you? Are you impervious to personal philosophical convictions regardless of inconvenient evidence in the fossil record?

Please explain.

You said that you did not get your information from YEC websites and yet you parrot the same inconsistencies and quote-mines that we see published on hundreds of YEC websites.

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

Your opinion is noted. But please don't ascribe that same opinion to Darwin, Gould or Eldredge.

But yes, gradualism is considered to be a only one simple element to the overall theory of evolution and perhaps not even that important. Well, it was formulated nearly two hundred years ago...

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.

I'm not seeing the serious problems. Perhaps you are having a problem presenting them?

Maybe it is only the unintelligent folks who see such problems.

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.

Dawkins admits to his oversimplification as shown by Jon earlier. There is plenty of previous history as we have pointed out. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?

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.

Whut??

You really think that I believe all fossils have been discovered? I 'hope for' nothing but the evidence keeps coming in.

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.

Your opinion is noted.

But if you have nothing of your own, please refrain from constant complaints about other peoples' work

Translation: "Evolution ATTEMPTS to explain all this."

Again, you create a strawman argument. Evolution does not try to explain 'everything' and it is certainly part of a learning process that continues. Is that such a bad way to gain knowledge?

Oh, wait! You don't care about that, do you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 12:56 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:38 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 302 of 1385 (849996)
03-28-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by JonF
03-26-2019 12:31 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
https://www.newsweek.com/...awkinss-new-book-evolution-79345:
...

Sadly, but quite expectedly, dredge will not be responding to this post.

One wonders why we bother to go to the work of doing actual research and presenting it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 03-26-2019 12:31 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 303 of 1385 (849999)
03-28-2019 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dredge
03-28-2019 1:34 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".

Which is the result of your continued misuse of the scientific terminology which is there to be used by people talking about actual science evolution with clarity and understanding.

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.

You do realize, I hope, that taxonomic nomenclature is man-made and used to describe and discuss topics. For instance we have Pelycodus:

Where the species at the bottom (oldest fossils in the chart) is labeled Pelycodus ralstoni while the two species at the top are labeled Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. As you can see the (arbitrary man made) genera nomenclature changes from Pelycodus to Notharctus, even though the evolution occurs within the breeding populations of the various species at the time they exist, as shown by their depth levels.

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.

Which is demonstrated by Pelycodus evolving by anagenesis through several species before the cladogenesis division into two independent species at the top.

This is why cladistics is generally preferred these days compared to traditional taxonomic classifications, it reduces confusion.

All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade:

Where Pelycodus ralstoni is the common ancestor population while Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are the descendant daughter populations.

... For example, a fish to an amphibian, ...

See Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition

... an ape to a human being, ...

Humans are apes.

... or a whale to a submarine.

LOL.

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 291 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:34 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:47 AM RAZD has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 47 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 304 of 1385 (850011)
03-28-2019 12:05 PM


Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Off course not. 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

Then there is theoretical science. Untestable hypothesis based on speculation. As with all pseudosciences the objective is to generate funding.

Just look at the centuries of debate and experiments on Spontaneous Generation that theoretical science tried to repress.

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.

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.

Such a sad excuse for science are the soft, theoretical subjects.
Attracting funding away from the real hard sciences like medicine.

Even physics has turned all darwinist theoretical. Astrophysicists thought they were on the verge of a breakthrough in understanding. However Newton and Einsteins maths doesn't work in space.... Hehehehe

The conclusive theory is that something is creating multiple universes only a tiny amount of them produce life. Sounds a lot like Darwinism to me.

The past 16 months iv been on an atheist forum. So now im really woke on their views and motives.

Anyways there is something in there that will trigger someone and send them to the cry cabinet. Wah

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by JonF, posted 03-28-2019 12:29 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 307 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2019 12:56 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 308 by ringo, posted 03-28-2019 12:56 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 309 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2019 1:10 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 343 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:58 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 305 of 1385 (850013)
03-28-2019 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Porkncheese
03-28-2019 12:05 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
The past 16 months iv been on an atheist forum. So now im really woke on their views and motives.

Too bad you didn't learn anything about science and scientists. E.g.:

However Newton and Einsteins maths doesn't work in space.... Hehehehe

Hee hee hee indeed. That's false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Porkncheese, posted 03-28-2019 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 306 of 1385 (850014)
03-28-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by RAZD
03-27-2019 4:47 PM


Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
quote:
and tell me if are you using your false definition of "genus" (which is actually species by scientific technical definition) or the actual scientific technical definition for genera?

Is there such a thing as a technical definition of genus? The best I could come up with is 'the next convenient level of taxonomic group above that of species', which is vague and arbitrary. Nor is it even accurate, since taxonomists often make use of subgenera, or species groups.

All of which renders Dredge's definition of macroevolution utterly meaningless.

quote:
If (D) and (E) are related via common ancestor (C), and (H) and (I) are related by common ancestor (G) and (F) is related to (C) by common ancestor (B), it is logical that there exists a population (A) that is a common ancestor to (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) and (I). If evidence of population (A) exists at the proper place in the spacial-temporal matrix, then this conclusion is validated as tentatively true because this is the best known explanation for the evidence (until a better explanation is provided).

There's more to it than that. The existence of common ancestors G and B doesn't, in itself, tell us anything about whether G and B share a common ancestor. Darwin famously speculated that life was originally breathed into 'a few forms or one', and that was a reasonable assumption at the time. Maybe there was an ancestral plant, and an ancestral animal, but these themselves were not related.

Now, however, that we know so much more about biology, we can see how much all life shares in common. It's all based on DNA and RNA, and the basic cellular machinery behind transcription and replication is the same in all organisms. If we'd discovered that plants, animals, bacteria etc had different types of molecule as the basic reproductive unit; if their replication was based on different types of chemistry, it's unlikely biologists would have concluded there was a universal common ancestor. We would have gone with Darwin's 'few forms', not his one.

I know that you are aware of all this, I just thought the way phrased it may have been unclear for some readers.

Edited by caffeine, : shouldn't post from mobile devices


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2019 4:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:03 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8173
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


(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'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man


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 yet responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19134
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 308 of 1385 (850016)
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?
Porkncheese writes:

Pitdown man was the basis of this pseudoscience for over 100 years before it was embarrassingly uncovered as a deliberate hoax.


Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud by the very science that you scoff at.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Porkncheese, posted 03-28-2019 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by JonF, posted 03-28-2019 1:26 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 309 of 1385 (850017)
03-28-2019 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Porkncheese
03-28-2019 12:05 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
The fact that you have no idea that it is Piltdown Man, not pitdown, shows we should not even consider your arguments. If you cannot even have the decency to attempt to understand the subject matter, than do not insult us with your attempt at an argument.

Pitdown man was the basis of this pseudoscience for over 100 years before it was embarrassingly uncovered as a deliberate hoax.

This is a lie. Piltdown man was presented in 1912. Skepticism was expressed, by scientists, as early as 1915. It was fully exposed as a hoax in 1953. So you are wrong on all counts.
Here is a quick overview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Exposure

Please look at my signatures. Why do you have to lie? Is it that your position has no validity?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Porkncheese, posted 03-28-2019 12:05 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:20 AM Theodoric has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 310 of 1385 (850018)
03-28-2019 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by ringo
03-28-2019 12:56 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud by the very science that you scoff at.

And it was suspect from the beginning, and was never a significant basis for the ToE.

Not that Porkie cares.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by ringo, posted 03-28-2019 12:56 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 311 of 1385 (850080)
03-31-2019 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by JonF
03-26-2019 8:57 AM


Re: Pills
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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by JonF, posted 03-26-2019 8:57 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by JonF, posted 03-31-2019 9:49 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 312 of 1385 (850081)
03-31-2019 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Tanypteryx
03-26-2019 2:10 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
I guess so - the theory of evolution can simply mean the mechanisms of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-26-2019 2:10 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 313 of 1385 (850082)
03-31-2019 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by edge
03-26-2019 10:41 AM


Re: Pills
edge writes:


The theory of evolution


What is the theory of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by edge, posted 03-26-2019 10:41 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by JonF, posted 03-31-2019 9:51 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 326 by edge, posted 03-31-2019 10:38 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 314 of 1385 (850083)
03-31-2019 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by edge
03-26-2019 10:53 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by edge, posted 03-26-2019 10:53 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by JonF, posted 03-31-2019 9:54 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 327 by edge, posted 03-31-2019 10:49 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 315 of 1385 (850084)
03-31-2019 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by ringo
03-26-2019 11:42 AM


ringo writes:

I said that the common ancestor is "based on observation", not that it has been observed.


Oh, in that case what you mean is, the common ancestor is a theory based on observations.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 03-26-2019 11:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by ringo, posted 03-31-2019 2:09 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021