Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9041 total)
84 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,915 Year: 3,561/14,102 Month: 181/321 Week: 41/59 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.9


(3)
Message 331 of 1385 (850105)
03-31-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Dredge
03-31-2019 11:09 AM


Re: LUCA
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 11:09 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 4:21 AM vimesey has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19125
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 332 of 1385 (850108)
03-31-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Dredge
03-31-2019 2:59 AM


Dredge writes:

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


All theories are based on observations.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 2:59 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19125
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 333 of 1385 (850109)
03-31-2019 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Dredge
03-31-2019 6:06 AM


Dredge writes:

you made a claim and it's up to you to substantiate it with evidence.


You made the claim that there is no practical use for a UCA. You have been shown that scientists disagree with you. It is up to you to show that they are wrong.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 6:06 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 1:46 AM ringo has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 334 of 1385 (850132)
04-02-2019 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by JonF
03-31-2019 9:49 AM


Re: Pills
JonF writes:

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.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by JonF, posted 03-31-2019 9:49 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by dwise1, posted 04-02-2019 1:55 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 358 by JonF, posted 04-02-2019 10:01 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 335 of 1385 (850133)
04-02-2019 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
03-31-2019 2:12 PM


ringo writes:

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!

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 03-31-2019 2:12 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 04-03-2019 3:22 PM Dredge has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4638
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 336 of 1385 (850134)
04-02-2019 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Dredge
04-02-2019 1:38 AM


Re: Pills
Wow! You truly have absolutely no clue, do you?

Please explain to us how your inability to understand the most basic evolutionary concepts should qualify you as an expert who can dismiss evolution altogether.

If you were truly interested in fighting against evolution, then shouldn't you at least try to learn something about it instead of dreaming up complete nonsense to rail against?

And of course all that will just go right over your head. If you ever wonder why we normals look upon you creationists as a bunch of fracking idiots, just look in the mirror.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 1:38 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Dredge, posted 04-03-2019 1:03 AM dwise1 has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 337 of 1385 (850135)
04-02-2019 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Tangle
03-28-2019 3:52 AM


Tangle writes:

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.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2019 3:52 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 338 of 1385 (850136)
04-02-2019 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Tangle
03-28-2019 4:21 AM


Tangle writes:

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"

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2019 4:21 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2019 3:26 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 339 of 1385 (850137)
04-02-2019 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Stile
03-28-2019 8:35 AM


edge writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Stile, posted 03-28-2019 8:35 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Stile, posted 04-02-2019 9:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 340 of 1385 (850138)
04-02-2019 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by RAZD
03-28-2019 9:18 AM


Re: The Theory of Evolution
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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2019 9:18 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2019 9:59 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 341 of 1385 (850139)
04-02-2019 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by edge
03-28-2019 9:50 AM


edge writes:

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

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by edge, posted 03-28-2019 9:50 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by edge, posted 04-02-2019 10:10 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 375 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2019 12:58 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 342 of 1385 (850140)
04-02-2019 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by RAZD
03-28-2019 10:12 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
RAZD writes:

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?

LOL

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.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2019 10:12 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2019 9:38 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 343 of 1385 (850141)
04-02-2019 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Porkncheese
03-28-2019 12:05 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
PorknCheese writes:

Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?


I can think of one - it provides a comforting bed-time story for atheists.

Then there is theoretical science.

Yes, well, everyone knows theoretical science and science fiction have a lot in common and both can be equally entertaining.

Spontaneous Generation

The superstition of Spontaneous Generations still exists in the belief that the first life-form arose naturally from inanimate matter. Yep, rocks (or something close to it) gave birth to life.

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

By frequenting such sites, it also becomes obvious where Loony-Left culture (eg, same-sex marriage, abortion, evolutionism) comes from ... but that's another story.

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

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 344 of 1385 (850142)
04-02-2019 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by caffeine
03-28-2019 12:53 PM


Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
caffiene writes:

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by caffeine, posted 03-28-2019 12:53 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by JonF, posted 04-02-2019 10:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 345 of 1385 (850143)
04-02-2019 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Tangle
03-28-2019 12:56 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tangle writes:

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.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2019 12:56 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2019 3:34 AM Dredge 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