Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
32 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 responded

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8149
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


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 responded

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8149
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


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 responded

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 yet responded

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 acknowledged this reply

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
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 responded

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

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1245
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 355 of 1385 (850153)
04-02-2019 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Dredge
04-02-2019 4:21 AM


Re: LUCA
How about a short definition of "the theory of evolution"?

As Tangle has pointed out, your game is to try to reduce the complexities of the ToE to sound bites and bumper stickers, so that you can try to mess around with the linguistic limitations of those bumper stickers in an effort to discredit the detailed theory.

The ToE is a very large and complex field - my mother spent years on her doctorate, just examining certain aspects of it. The only chance anyone has of properly understanding it is to spend a long time, with a good brain, studying it.

Scientists are pretty helpful and decent people on the whole, and like to help non-scientists by trying to encapsulate the science in short and easy to follow generalisations - or sound bites and bumper stickers, if you prefer. And it's great they do, because it can lead to a more rounded, better informed population. Wikipedia is good for soundbites like that.

But the recipients of those soundbites don't get to have a seat at the table when it comes to attempting to discredit the science, based simply on the soundbites. People only get to do that when they've fully studied the science and understood it. That would be like discussing and critiquing a novel, having just been told the chapter headings.

If you want credibility, study the science first - if you don't, you'll only ever be a complete and utter muppet on the subject.


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 354 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 4:21 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8149
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


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 yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 357 of 1385 (850158)
04-02-2019 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Dredge
04-02-2019 2:24 AM


Dredge writes:

Yep ... all applied biology would be rendered useless if no one believed all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. So funny!

It's more linked in the other direction:

If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.

But I get the feeling that you live in a constant state of "getting things wrong."
So you do you, buddy. Keep on chugging. I'm rooting for you!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:24 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 358 of 1385 (850161)
04-02-2019 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Dredge
04-02-2019 1:38 AM


Re: Pills
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).

Ned made the same point as I did. You brought up the actions of antibiotics to avoid the point.

The actions of antibiotics have nothing to do with the discussion. How bacteria evolve in the presence of antibiotics is relevant.

The aim of finishing the whole series of antibiotics is to render extinct a population of bacteria - extinction is evolution?

Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong. Want to try again, or take a free copy of the home game and go away?

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 keep insisting that LUCA is a critical foundation of the ToE. If so, a practical application of the concept LUCA is supporting the ToE which has practical applicad

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 1:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 359 of 1385 (850162)
04-02-2019 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Dredge
04-02-2019 3:03 AM


Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
How very dare you!! Do you have any idea of the calibre of intelligence and euridition you're dealing with?]

Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:03 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 360 of 1385 (850163)
04-02-2019 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Dredge
04-02-2019 2:38 AM


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.

Or perhaps he was proposing an explanation for the known fossil record at the time. I'm not sure why he would be 'hoping' for anything.

Perhaps you are projecting your own predilection for an agenda on other people. I've noticed that you often do that.

I very much doubt if the the Wiki article is using "sudden appearance" as a human colloquialism.

That's what I said...

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".

Or it could be that the transition was not 'sudden' in the kind of terms that you think.

As an average, anti-science fanatic, of course.

I'm not aware of any evidence in the fossil record that represents an inconvenience to any of my personal philosophical convictions.

That wasn't my question.

Some of the points made by YEC sites are valid, imo.

Sure, when they say that jaguars are mammals, I agree.

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!

Then why do you take 'evolutionist' comments out of context in order to support your agenda?

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.

First of all, let me congratulate you on being such an expert on the rate of evolution over the last 4 billion years. But who says that PE is going to produce 'huge jumps' in morphology? What is a 'huge jump'?

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?

Once again, you ascribe motivations to me just as you did to Darwin above.

Okay, first of all what is this about 'innumerable' transitional fossils? Does that compare to the huge amount of data you have to support your explanation of the fossil record?

Oh ... wait! You don't have an explanation, do you? That's convenient for you. You can just sit there and complain about the generations of actual researchers who went out in the field and actually worked on the subject. That makes sense to me!

And be honest now. You will never be satisfied no matter how many transitional fossils we would present, including an 'innumerable' number.

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.

Well, there you have it. Gould mentions a 'geological moment'. What do you think that means?

He also talks about 'gradualism' against which he was arguing for the validity of his PE theory. However, even if gradualism were dead (which Gould did not believe), PE is still evolution.

"Since the so called Cambrian Explosion ... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record." Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990.

Okay. First of all what do you think Gould meant by 'so-called'?

Could it be that he thought it was not really an explosion?

And so what about the origin of all major Phyla? Where are all of the Classes and Orders? Where are the mammals for instance? Some of us have asked you this before. Are you incapable of answering?

"The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life" - S. J. Gould.

Indeed, but so what? First of all we know that he didn't think it was an instantaneous event. Second, Gould had accepted a number of evolutionary theories explaining the 'explosion'.

... "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

And? Did you read on to see if there were any explanations for this? In particular, did you read about all of the life forms that did exist before the Cambrian?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. I doubt that you have read beyond the extracted statement in the YEC quote-mine collection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 2:38 AM 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