Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


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 431 of 1385 (850390)
04-07-2019 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Dogmafood
04-04-2019 8:48 PM


ProtoTypical writes:
Do you know how to use a theory?
I think so ... a theory is an explanation of observed facts.
Can you provide an example of any theory having a practical use?
Yes ... if Douglas J. Futuyma's definition of ToE is anthing to go by:
"The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution ... In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. "
Can you provide an example of a theory that does not incorporate the principals that it attempts to explain?
No.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Dogmafood, posted 04-04-2019 8:48 PM Dogmafood has not replied

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


Message 434 of 1385 (850393)
04-07-2019 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tangle
04-05-2019 3:16 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tangle writes:
I'm disappointed to say that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are not atheists.
Please excuse me while I do this ... 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!!!
I love your continued quoting mining of Gould as though he supported the creationists arguments
Gould supported creationist arguments? Oh dear, here it comes again ... 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!!!
I reason I often quote Gould is, he seemed to be one of the few evolutionist scientists who was willing to talk honestly about the fossil record. If it wasn't for scientists like him, the scientific community would probably still be pushing the myth that the fossil record supports Dawin's theory of gradualism. Gould et al let the cat out the bag:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ...
We (paleontologists) fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. " S. J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb.
"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record" - Wikipedia, "Punctuated equilibrium".
"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.""
"the evangelical right" refers to YECism, which is not my position. I accept the same age of life on earth and the same fossil record as Gould did.
Source please.
"A lot can happen in 40 million years, the approximate length of the Cambrian Period. Animals showed dramatic diversification during this period of Earth's history. This has been called the "Cambrian Explosion". When the fossil record is scrutinized closely, it turns out that the fastest growth in the number of major new animal groups took place during the as-yet-unnamed second and third stages (generally known as the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages) of the early Cambrian, a period of about 13 million years." (ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian)
"Cambrian explosion, the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago." (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
But I accept that there are differing views on the length of the Cambrian explosion. Gould refers to it as "the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years" but others say as much as thirty million years.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 3:38 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 435 of 1385 (850394)
04-07-2019 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tangle
04-05-2019 3:16 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tangle writes:
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.
Please be advised that his quote deals with the time-frame of the Cambrian "Period", not the Cambrian "explosion".
Biologists do not have a problem with these numbers - evolution sometimes appears to take place “rapidly” with long periods of relative statis.
This creationist does not have a problem with these numbers - creation sometimes appears to take place "rapidly" with long periods of stasis.
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.
None of these facts are inconsistent with my creation model. Creation unfolded progressively over billions of years - it could easily be mistaken for evolution, as that is what the overall picture looks like.
That's what you say; I say that none of the stories in the bible are literal. I don't pick and mix.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is a mixture of both figurative and literal language. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as succession of six days of "work"" (#337).
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 11:45 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 436 of 1385 (850395)
04-07-2019 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Stile
04-04-2019 11:31 AM


[qs=Stile]
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.
Stile writes:
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."
What? You've found a practical use for the concept of UCA?!! Golly, that is an exciting development, I must say. Well, come on old chap, don't just sit there - please do explain!
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 392 by Stile, posted 04-04-2019 11:31 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Stile, posted 04-08-2019 10:23 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 437 of 1385 (850396)
04-07-2019 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by edge
04-04-2019 10:38 AM


Do you think that gravity means the same thing for a hydraulic engineer as it does to a theoretical physicist?
I used to believe I was once a hydraulics engineer and that I was once a theoreticial physicist, but then one day I realized that I was neither.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by edge, posted 04-04-2019 10:38 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 10:06 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 453 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2019 2:34 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 449 of 1385 (850485)
04-09-2019 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Stile
04-08-2019 10:23 AM


Stile writes:
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine the way we do it.
Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines in helpful directions.
Unsurprisingly, you make this claim without any evidence to back it up.
Why is accepting that all life on earth shares a common ancestor essential for guiding the creation of new medicines or for any practical application of medical science? You seem to be conflating the principle (fact) of common descent with the theory of (L)UCA.
Are you saying YEC scientists couldn't develop drugs and vaccines? If so, why not?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Stile, posted 04-08-2019 10:23 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-09-2019 2:22 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 451 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2019 7:18 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 475 by Stile, posted 04-10-2019 1:21 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 476 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-10-2019 1:54 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 477 by ringo, posted 04-10-2019 2:06 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 454 of 1385 (850518)
04-10-2019 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by RAZD
04-05-2019 8:36 AM


Re: quote mining -- misrepresentation
RAZD writes:
"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."
UCA is NOT a necessary part of the theory as noted in the definition section. Quote-mining like this is a form of lying -- trying to make an article say what it doesn't say when read in full by conflating two separate paragraphs from different sections to make it look like one paragraph is misrepresentation. Intentionally misrepresenting facts is lying.
1. It says, "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor." Notice the words "all life". There is only one way ALL LIFE on earth can share a common ancestor - it's if ALL life on earth descended from ONE common ancestor.
2. Besides being ridiculously simplistic, the comparison to one's grandparents is just plain dumb, as descent from one's grandparents involves simply two generations within one species - which is vastly different to what is described a few sentences earlier: "large scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
3. The sentence, "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandparent." also represents a classical example of Darwinist propaganda: The idea is mislead the reader into thinking that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor is just as sure and factual as a family descending from grandparents. It's the ol', "since microevolution is true, macroevolution is true" fallacy. But you can't fool all the people all the time.
The explanation is not part of the definition. The definition makes no reference to LUCA, period, end stop.
Nice try, but on the contrary, you have been found guilty of reading into a quote something that isn't there - which is form of quote-mining.
The explanation tells us what the theory helps us to understand about the history of life. It tells us what the evidence shows -- the pattern of common ancestry from today back to the first evidence of life.
This is how it works:
Since macroevolution = microevolution + time,
(L)UCA = ToE + time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2019 8:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by JonF, posted 04-10-2019 11:08 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 488 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2019 10:25 AM Dredge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 455 of 1385 (850519)
04-10-2019 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Stile
04-05-2019 8:50 AM


Stile writes:
searching-for-accurate-reality
ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Stile, posted 04-05-2019 8:50 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 456 of 1385 (850520)
04-10-2019 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by JonF
04-05-2019 9:41 AM


JonF writes:
I see you don't know much set theory. If a subset of the ToE has practical use then the ToE has practical use.
In that case, if a subset of the theory does not have a practical use, that means the theory does not have practical use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by JonF, posted 04-05-2019 9:41 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by JonF, posted 04-10-2019 11:16 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 457 of 1385 (850521)
04-10-2019 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by edge
04-05-2019 9:53 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:
I just love it when a YEC tells me what evolution is supposed to do or not do.
I'm not a YEC.
instantaneous expansion
Who said anything about an "instanteous expansion"?
ten million years is not an explosive event
Tell that to the scientists who use the term "Cambrian explosion".
particularly when (Gould) is arguing for PE
"The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and PUZZLING event in the history of life" - S. J. Gould. It seems PE didn't explain the Cambrian explosion even for Gould.
Why is it irrelevant? Because you don't want it to be?
No, because simple logic says it's irrelevant.
the sparsity of fossils from that period
So your theory relies on fossil "evidence" that isn't known to exist. And you wonder why some folks are dubious about evolution science (so-called)!
So explain it.
Mammals belong to the Chordata Phylum. The Chordate Phylum had its beginning during the Cambrian explosion.
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 419 by edge, posted 04-05-2019 9:53 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:32 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 458 of 1385 (850522)
04-10-2019 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by RAZD
04-05-2019 10:17 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
RAZD writes:
Dredge writes:
The P. ralstoni clade includes another genus? I wouldnt consider a different genus the same "kind" at all.
RAZD writes:
And curiously it doesn't matter one whit of ant frass what you think.
That's nice of you to say, but I actually wouldn't take much notice of what I said before because, for example, there are several genera of cats within the cat "kind".
You are not a biologist
Well, not yet. But when I receive my honourary doctorates in evolutionary biology I will be.
You lose - it is not a "better idea" ... it avoids the science
Ah, now this is a good example of why I will receive three honouray doctorates in evoltuionary biology and you will receive exactly none.
Referring to observed evolution as "empirical evolution" doesn't avoid the science in any way and it will create a clear distinction between factual evolution and theoretical evolution. The term "microevolution" is rather vague as there is no defined point where MICROevolution ends and MACROevolution begins.
Furthermore, when speaking of "evolution", it is sometimes unclear what is being referred to - is it empirical evolution or theoretical evolution, or both? But if "empirical evolution" is used (as I have defined it), it's meaning is clear and unambiguous.
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 420 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2019 10:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 10:03 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 489 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2019 10:36 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 459 of 1385 (850523)
04-10-2019 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Stile
04-05-2019 1:33 PM


Stile writes:
No, that's unreasonable. Don't be silly.
No, it's not unreasonable or silly - if you google "practical uses for the theory of evolution", the first result is likely to be a Wikipedia article which claims to provide "practical applications" of "the theory of evolution".
Applications of evolution - Wikipedia
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Stile, posted 04-05-2019 1:33 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Stile, posted 04-10-2019 2:08 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 460 of 1385 (850524)
04-10-2019 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by dwise1
04-06-2019 12:32 AM


dwise1 writes:
Dan Barker described Christian fundamentalism (in which he had grown up) as "when your theology becomes your psychology."
Did Dan Barker notice that the belief system of evolution has become "your psychology" to millions of people?
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 422 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:32 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 461 of 1385 (850525)
04-10-2019 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by dwise1
04-06-2019 12:49 AM


Re: Pills
dwise1 writes:
No you wouldn't be embarrassed and you know full well that you never would. You are a CREATIONIST, for cryin' out loud! You lie about everything you can and NEVER HAVE ANY SHAME ABOUT YOUR LIES AND DECEPTIONS! Trust me; I've been dealing with you creationists and your slimy ways since the late 1980's.
First of all, 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 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!!!
Secondly, I was hoping that you would admit your embarrassing blunder that was message 370, followed maybe by an apology. Alas, what I got instead was a anti-theist, ad hominem rant instead. Oh well .... you at least provided a little entertainment, for which I say, Thank you.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:49 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 462 of 1385 (850527)
04-10-2019 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by herebedragons
04-06-2019 2:16 PM


herebedragons writes:
Being educated about a subject hardly counts as indoctrination
Dobzhansky wrote, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". What he meant by "evolution" is the history of life on earth according to evolutionary theory. That being so, it is nonsense that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of" this history - because there is not one practical use in all of applied biology that owes its existence to this history.
It is certainly possible for a Creationist (or whatever variation of evolution denier you prefer) to work in a biological field, and even be quite successful, all the while denying the theory of evolution.
Really? What is your definition of the theory of evolution? If Douglas Futuyma is correct - "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution" - then I can't see how anyone who denies "the theory of evolution" can possibly operate as a competent biologist.
Actually the "theory of creationism" states that the theory of evolution is wrong and all who accept it are atheists
A citation, please.
All creationists do is attempt to devalue the theory of evolution by employing misinformation and outright falsehoods.
Are you sure? If "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution" (Futuyma), then I've never heard of any creationist who devalues the theory of evolution. Microevolution is "evolution", after all.
This is a false and misleading characterization of what evolutionary biologists "think."
I once encountered a Ph.D biologist (on the BioLogos site) who claimed it was necesssary to accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor in order for mice to be useful for testing human drugs on. That poor deluded soul was so brainwashed by the cult of evolution that the concept of UCA had become a "reality" that he couldn't think outside of.
I know of NO significant advancement in knowledge put forth by adherents to the "theory of creationism"
If nothing else, this is an excellent example of a straw man argument.
"Evolution is the unifying theory of all biology."
My view on this has since I posted that comment - if one accepts that "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution" (Douglas Futuyma), for example, then one can indeed argue that "evolution is the unifying theory of all biology".
You see, I learnt that there is no definitive definition of "the theory of evolution" and it means different things to different people.
I hope to make a case for how the concept of common descent is useful (and indeed a central concept) in biological science
Thanks for the junior-high biology lesson, but I graduated several decades ago.
If I discover a new organism, I don't wonder if it was created yesterday ... I know, based on the theory of evolution, that it has an ancestral population.
Anyone above the age of about three (and clueless about ToE) would assume that any organism has an ancestral population.
Biology relies on the concept of common ancestry to allow comparisons between organisms and to narrow down the search field to those comparisons that would provide the most likely chance of answering the question.
A knowledge of common ancestry is practically useful only within a genus. We know, for example, that Green Warblers speciate into other Green Warblers - okay, this level of evolution might prove useful in applied science. But rabbiting on about how a species supposedly evolved from some other genus in the distant past is just useless talk. Only common descent that is observable is useful.
this idea of relatedness forms the foundation of most biological inquiries.
"biologicial inquires" could mean anything, including useless theorising about useless ideas - the OP is concerned only with practical uses in applied science.
Your idea is that every genus is specially created (or whatever your position is specifically) and that this idea explains observations just as well as the ToE ... but the explanation doesn't provide any predictive power.
1. So what? My idea is not a scientific theory.
2. Can you provide an example of how the almighty predictive power of ToE has proven useful in a practical sense?
(Btw, the fossil record has revealed that the most fundamental prediction of ToE - gradualism - has failed miserably.)
What objective criteria do you use to determine if two species share a common ancestor?
1. Why would I need to do that?
2, Even the village idiot could observe two species of magpies and conclude they are related, but so what?
What advantage would a theory of special creation have over the current theory?
As far as a practical advantage goes - none that I can think of. But in terms of providing an explanation for the fossil record, progressive creation makes much more sense than evolution.
While the specifics of a universal common ancestor may not be particularly useful to biology
"may not be particularly useful to biology"? You almost got it right. Try ... the concept of UCA is not useful to biology at all.
Currently, there are no groups that are know to NOT share a common ancestor
Translation: "It is my BELIEF that currently there are no groups that don't share a common ancestor." There is a big difference between belief and knowledge.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by herebedragons, posted 04-06-2019 2:16 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:51 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 469 by herebedragons, posted 04-10-2019 10:15 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