Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 391 of 1385 (850234)
04-04-2019 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Dredge
04-04-2019 2:52 AM


What is meant by "ToE" seems to be a subjective thing and varies from person to person.
And?
Is it a surprise to you that a robust theory relevant to a large number of science fields might mean different things to different people?
Do you think it is uncommon for a given word or idea to have more than one meaning?
Do you think that gravity means the same thing for a hydraulic engineer as it does to a theoretical physicist?
As usual, it appears that you attempt to sow doubt where there really is none. Or is this just a semantic game that allows you a false feeling of superiority, when really it's just another straw-man argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 2:52 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 3:34 AM edge has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 392 of 1385 (850236)
04-04-2019 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Dredge
04-04-2019 1:51 AM


Dredge writes:
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.
Would you like to start again from the beginning?
It's okay, I fully understand how difficult it can be for some to remember such difficult ideas.
Here it is again from Message 171:
"Medicine."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 1:51 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by edge, posted 04-04-2019 11:50 AM Stile has replied
 Message 436 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 3:27 AM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 393 of 1385 (850237)
04-04-2019 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
04-03-2019 7:35 PM


Faith writes:
So are silly putdowns.
The "silly" putdowns just reflect the absurdity of your position.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 7:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 394 of 1385 (850238)
04-04-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Dredge
04-04-2019 1:51 AM


Dredge writes:
Is it my imagination or am I noticing a pattern here?
If you noticed anything it would be a bloody miracle.
Dredge writes:
You sometimes make a claim....
I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no use for UCA. You have been shown that your claim is nonsense. If you're too dense to see what you've been shown, that may be a reflection on my/our ability to demonstrate but it is not a reflection on the reality of the UCA or its usefulness.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 1:51 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 2:13 AM ringo has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 395 of 1385 (850239)
04-04-2019 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Stile
04-04-2019 11:31 AM


Would you like to start again from the beginning?
It's pretty clear that the anti-science crowd mistakes their opinions for facts, and that contrary opinions can be dismissed for no other reason. If I find the theory of evolution useful in explaining the data that I see in the geological record, that means exactly nothing to Dredge. Therefor, he can invoke denial as an argument when really, it's just another blinded opinion from someone who cannot fathom the fact that someone might have an alternative opinion. It becomes an article of faith, a way to shut down dialog.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Stile, posted 04-04-2019 11:31 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Stile, posted 04-05-2019 8:50 AM edge has not replied
 Message 429 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 2:18 AM edge has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 396 of 1385 (850246)
04-04-2019 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Tangle
04-04-2019 3:30 AM


Religionists love picking at definitions because they can't pick at the facts. They think that by mangling the words, the facts will change. There are several ways of defining the ToE; they are all describing the same thing and they're all correct as far as they go.
Dredge's mind keeps exploding because we all are giving different definitions of the ToE. A lot of them are saying pretty much the same thing, but even when they are not, they are still are ALL CORRECT. I think I have given 2 or maybe 3 in this thread and none of them are contradictory. Biology is a huge subject and the theory also includes data from paleotology, bio-geography, geology and more.
Dredge seems to think that a definition of one or two sentences should include everything. He also mistakenly thinks the definition of the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.
Dredge writes:
Tangle writes:
there are certainly practical uses for ToE.
You're more than a bit daft aren't you?
Maybe just a bit...
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 3:30 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 2:26 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 397 of 1385 (850247)
04-04-2019 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Dredge
04-04-2019 3:36 AM


I will ask you again.
Do you know how to use a theory?
Can you provide an example of any theory having a practical use?
Can you provide an example of a theory that does not incorporate the principals that it attempts to explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 3:36 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 2:35 AM Dogmafood has not 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

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


Message 401 of 1385 (850254)
04-05-2019 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tangle
03-31-2019 11:11 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tangle writes:
There's nothing about the Cambrian explosion - or radiation, as science normally refers to it as - that suggests supernatural sources.
Spoken like a true atheist!
"The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment ... all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." - Stephen J. Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682.
"Thus the fossil record seems to show that most of the major animal groups appeared SIMILTANEOUSLY. In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational ... This explosive evolutionary radiation of the Cambrian seems to be unique ... nor was there a similar radiation when animals invaded the land ... the colonisation of the land saw no new ways of making an animal " - S. J. Gould.
"the Cambrian phylum count was larger, perhaps much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone ... The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant intial proliferation, followed by much loss" - S. J. Gould
"Since the so called Cambrian Explosion ... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record" - S. J. Gould, Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990
Please be advised that an "explosion" of very disparate life-forms appearing "similtaneously" and in "a geological moment" contradicts your evolution model. So the Cambrian explosion doesn't look anything like evolution's single "tree of life" - rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that sprang up out of nowhere, thereby providing powerful evidence of creation and powerful evidence against evolution.
Furthermore, evolution predicts diverstiy followed by disparity, which is the opposite of what the Cambrian explosion reveals, which is dispartiy and diversity appearing simitaneously ... oops! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The 'explosion' lasted 25 million years - it was not a sudden event.
More like 10 million years, actually.
Funnier way for a creator to work it seems to me, he didn't start work in the Cambrian, that was billions of years earlier and he omitted very large animal groups from the Cambrian - insects, fish, lizards, birds and, rather importantly, mammals. Odd that if we were the sole point of the excercise.
Are you qualified to judge how God should create?
How do you know that man is the "sole point" of billions of years of creation?
Also it's not quite what's written in your book is it?
Haven't you heard? The creation story in the Bible is not literal - it doesn't need to be, because what happened pre-Adam is irrelevant to salvation.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2019 11:11 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 402 of 1385 (850255)
04-05-2019 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Tangle
04-02-2019 3:26 AM


Tangle writes:
l 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.
Okay, I take your point, but if there is more than one common ancestor, how can one say "all life on Earth is connected ... to each other"?
but a UCA is not a necessary part of the theory
Tell that to Berkeley University:
"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 ... The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, Understanding Evolution (emphasis mine).
The moral of the story is, there is no definitive definition of ToE - it varies from person to person.
because life shares common ancestry we can look back in time and see how it evolved.
Translation: "because we THINK life shares common ancestry we THINK we can look back in time and see how it evolved."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2019 3:26 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2019 8:36 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 417 by JonF, posted 04-05-2019 9:32 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 403 of 1385 (850256)
04-05-2019 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Tangle
04-02-2019 3:34 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tangle writes:
It's more than time to tell us what *you* actually believe so that we can better understand your problem with the ToE.
You obviously haven't read all my posts. Well, for starters, I accept the same time-frame for life on earth as you do and I accept same fossil record as you do - which shows that life on earth started with relatively simple forms and progressed in functional complexity over vast periods of time until we get to the present age. So I believe the history of life depicts an "evolution" of created life-forms, but it is not an evolution that is explained by a contiguous process of biological evolution. My progressive creation model also explains why all life on earth appears to be genetically related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2019 3:34 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:22 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 404 of 1385 (850257)
04-05-2019 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Tangle
04-04-2019 3:30 AM


Tangle writes:
You're still fighting to misunderstand
It is not correct to say, "The observed facts and principles of biology are the theory of evolution"; rather, it is correct to say, "the theory of evolution is based on the observed facts and principles of biology". On the other hand, when it comes to definitions of ToE, anything goes; so if someone wants to define ToE as simply the mechanisms of evolution, then who am I to judge?
Religionists love picking at definitions
Not me. There is no definitive definition of the theory of evolution, so it hard to pick at a moving target
There are several ways of defining the ToE; they are all describing the same thing and they're all correct as far as they go.
So you agree with Berkeley Uni when it says "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 3:30 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:32 AM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 405 of 1385 (850258)
04-05-2019 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Dredge
04-05-2019 2:26 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
Spoken like a true atheist!
Thank you. But I'm disappointed to say that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are not atheists.
I love your continued quoting mining of Gould as though he supported the creationists arguments. Just in case you might have missed any, here's some fallacious Gould quote mines plus a list of many others. I doubt that you'll read the actual words he said, but they're there if after a long prayer session with your god, you are overcome by a sudden moment of honesty.
List of fallacious creationist quotes - RationalWiki
quote:
Because of his support for the theory of episodic evolution rather than gradual evolution Gould is a popular target for creationist quote-miners. For example, creationists often quote Gould as saying that "the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change", but forget to take note of the rather essential second part of the quoted sentence: "and the principle of natural selection does not require it ” selection can operate rapidly."
The depiction of Gould as sympathetic to creationists via quote mining crosses over the line from laughable to flagrant dishonesty. Gould was known as an outspoken opponent of creationism. Of it, he said "The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream."
More like 10 million years, actually.
Source please.
quote:
Though there is some scientific debate about what fossil strata should mark the beginning of the period, the International Geological Congress places the lower boundary of the period at 543 million years ago with the first appearance in the fossil record of worms that made horizontal burrows. The end of the Cambrian Period is marked by evidence in the fossil record of a mass extinction event about 490 million years ago.
Cambrian Period & Cambrian Explosion: Facts & Information | Live Science
The biological concensus seems to be 20-25m years.
Biologists do not have a problem with these numbers - evolution sometimes appears to take place “rapidly” with long periods of relative statis.
Are you qualified to judge how God should create?
I'm qualified to point out the inconsistency of your argument of how he did it. Creation neither started nor ended in the Cambrian. Nor did it create the species we see today - including man.
How do you know that man is the "sole point" of billions of years of creation?
I think you had better say what else he has in mind. I can't find anything in your book to help me. Perhaps you can?
Haven't you heard? The creation story in the Bible is not literal
That's what you say; I say that none of the stories in the bible are literal. I don't pick and mix. I think you'd better have that discussion with your fellow creationists.

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 401 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 2:26 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 3:11 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 435 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 3:20 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024