Something that would take at least a week's worth of lessons - and which would involve me in way more time typing on my phone than I'm prepared to invest in you, since you have made it clear that you are interested only in trying (very poorly - repetition is very weak as a technique Dredge - you can do better) to play games and not in learning.
Suffice to say, though, that none of the lessons would involve invisible magic sky people with wands.
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 ?
It has nothing to do with the actions of antibiotics. That's why it's so strange you brought it up.
It's so strange that you should say this, as it wasn't me who brought it up - it was NosyNed who said "Every pamphlet with antibiotics warns you to finish the whole series. That is evolutionary theory in action" (#191).
And "make sure you finish the course" is a practical application of the Theory of Evolution.
Make up your mind - you just said evolution "has nothing to do with the actions of antibiotics"!
The aim of finishing the whole series of antibiotics is to render extinct a population of bacteria - extinction is evolution? Regardless, this has nothing to do with the OP - the information that all life on earth evolved from a common ancesteor is irrelevant to the science involved in antibiotics.
You made the claim that there is no practical use for a UCA. You have been shown that scientists disagree with you.
Oh, I see - you lose the previous argument, so you're now trying to change the subject. No problem ... except I have no idea which practical uses you're referring to - I seem to have missed those posts!
Without the Theory of Evolution there can be no principles of evolution
Well, considering the fact that "the theory of evolution" can mean just about whatever you want it to mean *, I have to concede that post #183 may describe practical uses for "the theory of evolution".
* For example, "ToE" can simply mean the mechanisms of evolution (as Tanypteryx seems to think) - ie, facts and principles of biology that have useful applications.But when you find an article or paper that describes practical uses for "the theory of evolution", wake me up.
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.
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" is to say all life evolved from a common ancestor - ie, UCA.
"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"
theoried and practical applications are inherently linked an not be separated
Yep ... all applied biology would be rendered useless if no one believed all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. So funny!
"evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically ... none of the progress in biology depends even slightly on a theory" - Louis Bouroune (Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, 1957, p.79.
Thank you for going to the trouble of supplying that information (and thanks for the reference links - I'll check them out). It's interesting that there's no mention of LUCA in your definition.
One of your reference links is "Berkeley U." Here is a quote from one of their articles: "The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, "Understanding Evolution". (emphasis mine)
Perhaps. More likely, he understood that the fossil record is actually more than the known part of the fossil record.
In other words, Darwin pinned his hopes on imagined fossil evidence, not existing fossil evidence. That's strikes me as a rather odd approach to developing a scientific theory.
Wikipedia probably understands that 'sudden' in geological terms is not 'sudden' in human colloquial terms.
I very much doubt if the the Wiki article is using "sudden appearance" as a human colloquialism. Nevertheless, I understand your rationalisation - the last thing your average fanatical evolutionist (esp the atheist variety) wants to hear is that "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted." That's what one might call an "inconvenient truth".
How about you? Are you impervious to personal philosophical convictions regardless of inconvenient evidence in the fossil record?
I'm not aware of any evidence in the fossil record that represents an inconvenience to any of my personal philosophical convictions.
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.
Some of the points made by YEC sites are valid, imo.
Your opinion is noted. But please don't ascribe that same opinion to Darwin, Gould or Eldredge.
I don't believe I have. I'm not aware of any evolutionist who considers the fossil record to be "an embarrassment to evolution" - God forbid,that would be heresy!
gradualism is considered to be a only one simple element to the overall theory of evolution and perhaps not even that important.
Even with PE factored in, the fossil record is still going to one of gradualism. I mean, PE isn't going to produce huge jumps in the morphology of organisms.
I'm not seeing the serious problems.
This is perfectly understandable if you have a deep-seated phychological need (eg, atheism) to stick your head in the sand.
Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? The evolution of birds from dinosaurs, for example, should have produced innumerable transitional fossils - where are they?
Maybe it's only the unintelligent folks who see such problems.
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682. "Since the so called Cambrian Explosion ... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record." Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990.
"The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life" - S. J. Gould.
"the paucity of fossils before the great Cambrian "explosion" 600 million years ago is perhaps the outstanding fact and frustration of my career" - the Panda's Thumb, p.219
Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
For instance we have Pelycodus ...
Hey thanks - that's very interesting. The supernatural creation of a different genus (Notharctus from Pelycodus) is actually clearly documented in the fossil record - God is great!
This is why cladistics is generally preferred these days compared to traditional taxonomic classifications, it reduces confusion.
I see; okay, thanks for that. Well, I'd better learn something about cladistics - even though it's a big, scary word.
All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni clade in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ratstoni clade.
So the P. ralstoni clade ends at P. jarrovii?
Oh, so you think it funny that submarines descended from whales? For your information, the Bible actually describes the very event that initiated this evolutionary process - Jonah was swallowed by a whale, thereby creating the very first submarine (albeit a one-man version ... known as a Nineveh-clade (or class) submarine). Don't scoff at what - as a result of your own pathetic ignorance - you don't understand.
Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
All of which renders Dredge's definition of macroevolution utterly meaningless.
1. How very dare you!! Do you have any idea of the calibre of intelligence and euridition you're dealing with?
2. The very fact that organisms can be classified into discrete groups suggests the evolutionary concept of a contiguous transitionals is a fig-tree of Darwinist imagination.
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.
You seem blissfully unaware that going from this to "all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor" involves a massive extrapolation, a massive leap of faith and a massive dose of wishful thinking.
Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
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.
Well may you mention the Enlightenment - it produced a culture of atheism which in turned produced the erroneous belief that the fossil record is the result of a process of biological (godless) evolution.
Btw, I thought it was common knowledge that it was the pre-Enlightenment, creationist belief that God created an ordered universe that gave birth to the scientific method.
Their only relevance is that science - unlike religion - adapts its ideas according to the facts as they are uncovered.
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.