Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


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 496 of 1385 (850762)
04-14-2019 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by edge
04-07-2019 10:03 AM


edge writes:
The fact that some scientists find evolutionary concepts useful in both theoretical and applied science.
And if you have 'forgotten', that just makes it easier to deny, yes?
I don't recall denying that. Please point out where I did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 10:03 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by edge, posted 04-14-2019 9:20 AM Dredge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 497 of 1385 (850768)
04-14-2019 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:37 AM


Progressive Creation is religious fantasy of no value
RAZD writes:
"Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability
So what?
That means it is useless as a theory.
It has no practical application
You expect a religous (non-scientific) theory to have a practical, scientific application?
If you want it to be considered in relation to science theory, yes. If you want it to be considered an ad hoc religious concocted fantasy pretending to be worth discussing, then no ... I would expect it to be full of nonsense, like:
I've actually covered this before: I believe "God's finger" in evident every time a species from one genus appears to "evolve" into a species of a different genus (something that has never been observed, despite thousands of years of selective breeding by human beings, using every technique under the sun, trying to change the morphology of various animals and plants).
Thanks for admitting that it is useless ad hoc religious concocted fantasy.
This also means it is invalid to use in a science thread, because it is just a (latest in a long line) form of "god-did-it" argument of absolutely no scientific value. This is a science thread, and that means no "god-did-it" fantasies allowed.
But buck-up, it's not completely useless ... it can always serve as a bad example of creationist thinking.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:37 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 498 of 1385 (850769)
04-14-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
A progressive creation model easily accounts for the Cambrian explosion, ...
So does magic.
... the never-ending missing-links in the fossil record and the sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history.
All of which exist only in your imagination.
The theory of evolution has to explain these problems away with yet more theory - punctuated equilibrium, for example.
And?
You haven't thought this through, have you? Expecting a practical application for a religious belief is illogical.
That is exactly what I've thought through.
So what is the point of this thread? You have expended thirty some pages on a point of exactly no consequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:42 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 499 of 1385 (850770)
04-14-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:59 AM


I don't recall denying that. Please point out where I did.
Okay, then you agree that the theory of evolution is useful, yes?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:59 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:47 AM edge has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 500 of 1385 (850771)
04-14-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:55 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
The name of this site is "Evolution verses Creation". Are you trying to tell me the "Creation" part is strictly scientific?
Parts of this site are strictly and explicitly scientific, parts are explicitly non-scientific. Click "forums" at the top of the window and note the grouping.
Duh.
Somewhere around here there's an explicit statement of the differences between the groups, but I can't find it r now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 501 of 1385 (850772)
04-14-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:55 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dupe. .
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Dredge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 502 of 1385 (850774)
04-14-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:45 AM


Sorry, but it's not "exactly what the OP says". The OP specifically asks for PRACTICAL uses for UCA. The concept of UCA is not "useless", because it's useful in evolutionary theory - however it is useless in any practical sense.
So, no real point to this thread then.
UCA is not useful to you so it is not useful to you. That makes sense.
What will be your next revelation?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:45 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2019 1:34 AM edge has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 503 of 1385 (850803)
04-14-2019 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:45 AM


Dredge writes:
The OP specifically asks for PRACTICAL uses for UCA. The concept of UCA is not "useless", because it's useful in evolutionary theory - however it is useless in any practical sense.
That's a distinction without a difference. You don't get to define "practical' any more than you get to define "useful". You can't just claim a use is not a practical use.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:45 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 504 of 1385 (850819)
04-14-2019 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:55 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Oh you think you manipulation of language is a victory for you. Alas, all it does is further expose that you have no argument. Nothing but a troll.

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 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 505 of 1385 (850820)
04-14-2019 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:37 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
You expect a religous (non-scientific) theory to have a practical, scientific application?
Then this thread needs to be closed. You admit you are not discussing science. If you want to continue this discussion it needs to move to the faith forums, it does not belong in the science forums, because no matter how much science is presented you will just dismiss because of your religious beliefs. In other words you are just trolling.
Admin - do you not think this thread should be closed since Dredge admits all he has is a faith argument?

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 491 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:37 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2019 1:42 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 506 of 1385 (850826)
04-15-2019 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by RAZD
04-07-2019 8:19 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
RAZD writes:
Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2019 8:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by vimesey, posted 04-15-2019 3:50 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 508 by edge, posted 04-15-2019 8:45 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 509 by ringo, posted 04-15-2019 12:03 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 510 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-15-2019 12:31 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 511 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2019 12:36 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 649 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2019 4:55 PM Dredge has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 507 of 1385 (850827)
04-15-2019 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Logically incorrect - scientific knowledge and understanding has been shown to be continually expanding - new explanations for phenomena are regularly discovered.
Ergo your prediction is unverifiable, and does therefore not qualify as a prediction for the purposes of the definition of a theory.
Care to try again ?

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 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 508 of 1385 (850829)
04-15-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.
Except that it isn't ...
But the modern theory of evolution predicts that there will be explainable gaps in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2019 1:46 AM edge has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 509 of 1385 (850833)
04-15-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Dredge writes:
PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record.
You can predict that something will be unexplainable just like you can predict that mankind will never fly - but then it happens; the prediction was wrong.
That isn't the same as ToE predicting that the gaps will be explained. When a gap is filled in - and it happens every day - you can't unfill it.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 510 of 1385 (850835)
04-15-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Dredge writes:
RAZD writes:
Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.
So, what is your definition of your theory of "Progressive Creation?"
Is there a formal theory that is published somewhere or are you just making it up as you go along?
Is there a scientific publication that lays out all the particulars of the "theory" or are you the only adherent?
How does PC determine that any gaps in the fossil record are inexplicable by science?
Dredge writes:
This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.
What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable?
Is your prediction that gaps in the fossil record can never be scientifically explained? If so, how specifically could you confirm that prediction?
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 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2019 1:49 AM Tanypteryx 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