Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:12 PM
32 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, Hyroglyphx, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,103 Year: 9,139/19,786 Month: 1,561/2,119 Week: 321/576 Day: 124/98 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 466 of 1249 (850533)
04-10-2019 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:08 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
I'm not a YEC.

Okay, so you're an anti-scientist.

Who said anything about an "instanteous expansion"?

People who refer to the Cambrian explosion as a real explosion.

And yet there are a number of radiations in the fossil record. How many 'explosions' can you handle?

Tell that to the scientists who use the term "Cambrian explosion".

Tell that to the scientists who think the phrase is a regrettable misconception. That would be pretty much a unanimous agreement among those who actually work in related fields. Do you also believe that the sun actual rises and sets?

"Cambrian Explosion" is simply a historical, descriptive precedence, used only for convenience. I know, it's complicated for anti-scientists.

"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.

Please explain. More likely, Gould was providing an evolutionary explanation for the 'Cambrian Explosion' in a way that actually fits the data.

No, because simple logic says it's irrelevant.

Kind of like the statement that evolution had no application in practical science, yes?

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)!

My theory relies on the copious data that do exist.

Perhaps you are confusing that with your theory that relies on a 'designer' that is not known to exist.

Mammals belong to the Chordata Phylum. The Chordate Phylum had its beginning during the Cambrian explosion.

Being a proponent of 'progressive creation' then, you should have no problem with the progression from Ediacaran Phyla life to Cambrian Phyla.

And yet you reject that progression, insisting that Cambrian life forms just poofed into existence without precursors. Is this just a manifestation of your trollish nature?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:08 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Theodoric, posted 04-10-2019 12:40 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 513 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:35 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 467 of 1249 (850535)
04-10-2019 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Dredge
04-10-2019 3:21 AM


Herbie states:
Actually the "theory of creationism" states that the theory of evolution is wrong and all who accept it are atheists

Dredge replies:
A citation, please.

It's simple logic. Creationists have never been able to state a theory or to provide scientific evidence for creationism. They have only been able to attack evolution with denial, emotional assertions and logical fallacies.

Just as you are doing here.

For instance, asserting that evolution has no practical application in the applied sciences is an asserted opinion of no consequences and of no effect except to troll real scientists. One could say that this is dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:21 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by herebedragons, posted 04-10-2019 10:24 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4605
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 468 of 1249 (850536)
04-10-2019 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:22 AM


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


Heh, heh ...

Time to trot out one of the old, time-tested YEC tools: semantic ambiguity. Go ahead and keep making up your own definitions, and keep us entertained. I remember when, for a time, I had to refer to 'organic evolution' or 'biological evolution' because some YEC confused 'evolution' with such processes as rusting iron.

Really ... I think that most of us know what we are talking about here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:22 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Theodoric, posted 04-10-2019 12:43 PM edge has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1508
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 469 of 1249 (850537)
04-10-2019 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Dredge
04-10-2019 3:21 AM


Well, you certainly have an interesting style of debate... reducing my responses to simple sound bites - quoting half sentences, taking statements out of context etc...

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"

I don't know where you quoted this sound bite from, but I have Futuyma's textbook 'Evolution' and he devotes an entire chapter to defining evolution - the chapter is called "What is Evolution?" So your quote can hardly capture what Futuyma thinks evolution is. As for me, I would essentially agree with Futuyma's statement but would add that these processes of evolution are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth. It seems to me this is the part of the concept of evolution you disagree with. It would be much better if you would just argue against that concept rather than arguing about definitions.

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.

You "once encountered"??? And he speaks for all of us?

Thanks for the junior-high biology lesson, but I graduated several decades ago.

It wasn't a biology lesson, it was an example - an example that I thought was non-controversial. It appears to me that you are not clear how biologists use a theory, since you have stated that theories are useless to applied biology. It seems to me you think theories are just ponderings that we don't really use. So I thought a simple example would make clear how we use theories.

Anyone above the age of about three (and clueless about ToE) would assume that any organism has an ancestral population.

Everyone above the age of three except you. You have made it clear that you don't think common descent is sufficient to explain the diversity of life and that some diversity events require special creation. A creature that comes into existence by special creation does not have an ancestral population.

So what? My idea is not a scientific theory.

If you are presenting this as a personal philosophy, then I have no problem with that. I pretty much agree. I believe that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen. I also except evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Even the village idiot could observe two species of magpies and conclude they are related, but so what?

Hardly. Since we have begun to use molecular methods for determining relatedness, traditional classifications are being reexamined. The problem is we don't always know what traits are important to classification. What is important is evolutionary history - that is, what traits have been inherited from an ancestor and what traits are derived.

Evolutionary history is an integral part of any study of populations and is usually where a researcher will start - that is develop a phylogenetic hypothesis. This provides that framework for studying local adaptation, life history traits, development, community assemblage, etc.

Even when studying a genus where we would all agree the members all share a common ancestor, you need a way to anchor, or root the tree. Unrooted trees do serve some purpose, but without an ancestral character state, you can't tell what traits have changed. Determining the appropriate choice of outgroup - that is, the ancestral character state, is dependent on common ancestry between groups.

As far as a practical advantage goes - none that I can think of.

Do you work in the biological sciences?

"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.

Wrong. It is not my "belief." There is no evidence or even any convincing arguments that there are gaps between species that cannot be explained by the processes of evolution. There is also no need to add unsubstantiated and untestable factors to explain diversity. In fact, those factors, such as special creation, add unnecessary complications to scientific studies.

Pick any creature... was it specially created or did it evolve from a common ancestor? How would you know? Use your magpie example... you find a new species of magpie, did it evolve from a common ancestor or was it specially created? How would you know? How could that be tested? If it was specially created, how would that change how it fit into the tree of life?

All unnecessary and unanswerable questions.

The theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth. It provides us with a useful framework with which to study biodiversity, evolutionary forces, and classification.

None of this precludes God intervening in the history of life.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:21 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:15 AM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1508
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 470 of 1249 (850538)
04-10-2019 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by edge
04-10-2019 9:51 AM


Herbie states:

I have been wondering who 'Herbie' was... now I realize it's me

HBD (correct signature)


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:51 AM edge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4860
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 471 of 1249 (850541)
04-10-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:00 AM


Re: quote mining -- misrepresentation
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.

Nope.

HGT.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4860
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 472 of 1249 (850542)
04-10-2019 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:04 AM


In that case, if a subset of the theory does not have a practical use, that means the theory does not have practical use.

Yeah, you have no clue about set theory or logic.

Say set A has subsets B and C. Subset B has no practical use, subset C does. One subset of A does not have practical use, but A has practical use.

You should have said "In that case, if all subsets of the theory do not have a practical use, that means the theory does not have practical use."

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:04 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6269
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 473 of 1249 (850547)
04-10-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by edge
04-10-2019 9:32 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
This again shows that when creos have no argument they resort to manipulating words and language. Their dishonesty is shown by how they think they have a valid argument when all they do is twist, manipulate and equivocate words and terms. Equivocation is the hallmark of almost all creo arguments.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:32 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6269
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 474 of 1249 (850548)
04-10-2019 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by edge
04-10-2019 10:03 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
This reinforces my statement in Message 473

Edited by Theodoric, : forgot my


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 10:03 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3507
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 475 of 1249 (850549)
04-10-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Dredge
04-09-2019 12:52 AM


Dredge writes:

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.

Perhaps you missed it.
Here it is again: "medicine."

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?

Because "the creation of new medicines or any practical application of medical science" is guided by accepting that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.
That is, if one did not accept that all life on earth shares a common ancestor - it wouldn't make any sense to accept that all life is connected, and that life evolves from previous life. Such ideas are fundamentally connected.

You seem to be conflating the principle (fact) of common descent with the theory of (L)UCA.

I'm not conflating them. They are two different ideas.
I am showing you how they are also inextricably linked.
Although they are different, they are also linked in a way where it doesn't make any sense to accept common decent and reject UCA. What would be the reason to do so?

Just like "a transistor" is a different idea than "an electronic device."
However, both are inextricably linked.
Although they are different, they are also linked in a way where it doesn't make any sense to accept electronic devices and reject transistors. What would be the reason to do so?

Are you saying YEC scientists couldn't develop drugs and vaccines? If so, why not?

I'm saying that if they were any good at it, in the sense of being able to keep up and come out with new ones as required - they would use the ideas of common descent and UCA. If they didn't (if anyone didn't) - then they wouldn't be any good at it - they would be known for being "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Dredge, posted 04-09-2019 12:52 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:29 AM Stile has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2231
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 476 of 1249 (850551)
04-10-2019 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Dredge
04-09-2019 12:52 AM


Are you saying YEC scientists couldn't develop drugs and vaccines?

Are you saying YEC scientists used YEC beliefs to create drugs and vaccines?

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 449 by Dredge, posted 04-09-2019 12:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:09 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16633
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 477 of 1249 (850553)
04-10-2019 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Dredge
04-09-2019 12:52 AM


Dredge writes:

Are you saying YEC scientists couldn't develop drugs and vaccines? If so, why not?


Why would they? Why not just pray to God for healing?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Dredge, posted 04-09-2019 12:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3507
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 478 of 1249 (850554)
04-10-2019 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:25 AM


Dredge writes:

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".

Uh - yeah.

It's actually the one I keep linking to you: "medicine."

And, again, if you don't believe this wiki - you're not going to believe a Scientific paper.
Just as if you don't believe a wiki telling you that transistors are used in electronic devices - you're not going to believe a Scientific paper.

Which is why providing a scientific paper to you isn't worth my time - it's unreasonable and silly for you to request it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:25 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:12 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 479 of 1249 (850555)
04-10-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Tanypteryx
04-10-2019 1:54 PM


As for my YEC beliefs since that's all that can really be done in the name of the ToE of course YEC beliefs are the basis for all science. You just call it the ToE although it's nothing but microevolution or variation built into a given species or Kind. Two populations of crows? You call that macroevolution? Evos are really self deceived.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-10-2019 1:54 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-10-2019 2:30 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 480 of 1249 (850556)
04-10-2019 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Stile
04-10-2019 2:08 PM


Soooo confused.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Stile, posted 04-10-2019 2:08 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019