Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 346 of 1385 (850144)
04-02-2019 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Theodoric
03-28-2019 1:10 PM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Theodoric writes:
Piltdown man was presented in 1912. Skepticism was expressed, by scientists, as early as 1915. It was fully exposed as a hoax in 1953.
It took nearly 40 years for scientists to wake up to it? How embarrassement! The Piltdown farce demonstrates how credulous and tendencious the scientific community is when it comes to evolution. The scientists who expressed early doubts were probably the creationists.
Please look at my signatures ... ""God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness."
Okay, let's consider this one: "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
I think what you mean is, "God did it" is not a scientific argument - which doesn't mean it it not a reasonable argument. I wholeheartedly support the "God of the gaps" approach.
Saying ""God did it" is not an argument" is an excuse for intellectual arrogance and bigotry ... and atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2019 1:10 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2019 5:15 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 452 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2019 2:31 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 348 of 1385 (850146)
04-02-2019 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by AZPaul3
03-31-2019 8:15 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
if you hang around at bit you may realize that Tanypteryx, the author of message 25 ringo referred to, IS one of those scientists from around the world who are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.
I don't recall claiming that Tanypteryx or any other scientist is not using evolutionary science to understand how life on our planet is reacting to changing climate.
Btw, simply "understanding" something doesn't up to a practical scientific use of knowledge.
... to a depth of detail and intellect that you cannot even conceive
How very dare you!!
If you dispute his work and the work of thousands of others in his discipline using the fact of "evolution," in all its facets ...
... which I don't.
You will also have to provide an alternative to the evolutionary model that has the same efficacy as the TOE.
Really? Why? I'm quite happy with the principles of evolution developed by science.
Incidentally, there are different definitions of ToE - what's yours?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by AZPaul3, posted 03-31-2019 8:15 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 350 of 1385 (850148)
04-02-2019 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by RAZD
03-31-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
RAZD writes:
And here I thought you wanted answers on a related line of reasoning involving your ignorance/denial/misunderstanding of the science of evolution.
As a layman with a fragile, eggshell mind, I can learn a great deal from the highly intelligent and very learned evolutionists on this forum. I appreciate your efforts in that regard.
Btw, I'm not trying to refute evolution - there exist many practical uses for the principles of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2019 9:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 351 of 1385 (850149)
04-02-2019 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by JonF
03-31-2019 9:51 AM


Re: Pills
JonF writes:
If you don't know you shouldn't be here.
If you were a highschool biology teacher and a student asked you for a definition of "the theory of evolution", how would you reply? I'd like to know because there are different versions of ToE.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by JonF, posted 03-31-2019 9:51 AM JonF has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 352 of 1385 (850150)
04-02-2019 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by JonF
03-31-2019 9:54 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
JonF writes:
Magic is consistent with everything and explains nothing.
1. My conviction that there is a Creator has nothing to do with magic - it is a reasonable and logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.
2. I believe creation explains a great deal. Science is actually very limited when it comes to the big picture.
But your designer must be a pathological liar to make all the evidence point to evolution.
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).
2. How does evidence of evolution make God a "pathological liar"?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by JonF, posted 03-31-2019 9:54 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2019 5:20 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 361 by edge, posted 04-02-2019 11:33 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 353 of 1385 (850151)
04-02-2019 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by RAZD
03-28-2019 8:45 AM


RAZD writes:
Birds ARE dinosaurs, the last remaining branch.
That's very useful information ... it's right up there with, the Tooth Fairy and Leprechauns share a common ancector.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2019 8:45 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by edge, posted 04-02-2019 11:35 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 354 of 1385 (850152)
04-02-2019 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by vimesey
03-31-2019 11:52 AM


Re: LUCA
vimesey writes:
Something that would take at least a week's worth of lessons
Fair enough. How about a short definition of "the theory of evolution"?
Suffice to say, though, that none of the lessons would involve invisible magic sky people with wands.
I should think not - belief in the supernatural is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by vimesey, posted 03-31-2019 11:52 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by vimesey, posted 04-02-2019 5:17 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 369 of 1385 (850189)
04-03-2019 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by dwise1
04-02-2019 1:55 AM


Re: Pills
dwise1 writes:
Wow! You truly have absolutely no clue, do you?
I don't know. Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by dwise1, posted 04-02-2019 1:55 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2019 2:20 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 385 of 1385 (850226)
04-04-2019 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by ringo
04-03-2019 3:22 PM


Is it my imagination or am I noticing a pattern here?
You sometimes make a claim, but when pressed for evidence to back up your claim, you have nothing. Your latest faux claim is that practical uses of the concept of UCA have been presented to me on this thread ... I asked you for evidence of this and you have - surprise, surprise! - nothing. Bizarre, to say the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 04-03-2019 3:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Stile, posted 04-04-2019 11:31 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 394 by ringo, posted 04-04-2019 11:46 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 386 of 1385 (850227)
04-04-2019 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by dwise1
04-03-2019 2:20 AM


Re: Pills
dwise1 writes:
Really? You really have no clue how "super bugs" evolve? Really?
Thanks for the lecture, but I've been aware of the theory of antibiotic resistance since high school (ie, for about 45 years). It ain't rocket science.
You've jumped the gun, got your wires crossed, barked up the wrong tree and got your panties in a twist over nothing: I was responding to this comment from post 191: "Every pamphlet with antibiotics warns you to finish the whole series. That is evolutionary theory in action."
The post says nothing about antibiotic resistance, bit simply refers to the killing of a population of bacteria - in which case, I asked what the mere killing of a population of bacteria has to do with "evolutionary theory". Obviously, if the poster had said "Antibiotic resistance is evolutionary theory in action", then I would have understood what he was talking about.
And you are just yet another fucking creationist idiot
Are you now embarrassed by this petulant comment? I would be.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2019 2:20 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:49 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 387 of 1385 (850228)
04-04-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-02-2019 1:57 PM


Faith writes:
There are no practical uses for the ToE
What is meant by "ToE" seems to be a subjective thing and varies from person to person. For example, Tanypteryx says "The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution" (cf #165).
According to this rather odd definition of ToE (apparently, a collection of facts and principles adds up to a scientific theory!), there are certainly practical uses for ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 3:30 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 391 by edge, posted 04-04-2019 10:38 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 389 of 1385 (850230)
04-04-2019 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-02-2019 1:57 PM


Faith writes:
evolutionary principles
1. Some (maybe most) "evolutionary principles" are really just factual principles of biology that are readily observed at the microevolutionary level, the concept of UCA being totally irrelevant to the existent of these factual principles of biology. Therefore, in this sense, it can be argued that some "evolutionary principles" have proven practically useful.
2. Tangle can't find any articles or papers that describe practical uses for "the theory of evolution" - the best he can come up with is an article describing practical uses for the "evolutionary principles". I contend that one cannot find or google any practical uses for "the theory of evolution" because ToE necessarily includes the concept of UCA - a concept that has no practical use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 4:16 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 397 by Dogmafood, posted 04-04-2019 8:48 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 398 of 1385 (850251)
04-05-2019 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by edge
03-31-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Pills
edge writes:
it is an explanation of all the facts regarding how life diversified through time
"diversified through time" - that would include UCA, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by edge, posted 03-31-2019 10:38 AM edge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 399 of 1385 (850252)
04-05-2019 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by edge
03-31-2019 10:49 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:
you're the one trying to make Dawkins look like an anti-evolutionist
Dawkins is an anti-evolutionist?
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!!!
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by edge, posted 03-31-2019 10:49 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by edge, posted 04-05-2019 9:28 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 400 of 1385 (850253)
04-05-2019 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by edge
03-31-2019 11:03 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:
Even though you can't explain why.
I've already explained why - the Cambrian explosion looks nothing like a single "tree of life"; rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that appeared out of nowhere. Oh dear, that's not supposed to happen ...
It's just your religion.
There's nothing in my religion about the fossil record. However, the fossil record does offer strong evidence of creation, which is in my religion. According to your belief system, evolution is a fact, therefore an inconvenient truth like the Cambrian explosiion is simply swept under the carpet and rationalized away.
So, since it is "referred to" as an explosion in geological terms, you liken it to modern ordnance.
Ten million years is an "explosion" in modern ordnance? (whatever "ordnance" means.)
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 ... ALL MAJOR DISCOVERIES OF THE PAST CENTURY HAVE ONLY HEIGTHENED THE MASSIVENESS AN GEOLOGICAL ABRUPTNESS OF THIS FORMATIVE EVENT ..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682.
There were probably billions of years in the history of life prior to the Cambrian Period.
Probably, but that's irrelevant to my point. What's relevant is what existed in the Ediacaran and what suddenly appeared without any evolutionary history in the Cambrian.
Where were the mammals for instance?
Mammals appeared later - so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by edge, posted 03-31-2019 11:03 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by edge, posted 04-05-2019 9:53 AM Dredge 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