Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 5:49 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
323334
35
3637Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 511 of 555 (850836)
04-15-2019 12:36 PM
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.

Please provide this evidence, so we can show you this is a false claim, and just another tired god-of-the-gaps religious claim not suited for a science thread.

You may want to {if you are engaged in honest debate) peruse http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html with the listing of pratts regarding gaps first.

Also be aware that the theory of evolution explains the development of life from beginning until today, with predictions for the future. This includes explaining gaps in the fossil evidence.

So put up your evidence and we'll see whether it is of more interest than all the ant frass in antarctica.

Enjoy


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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 512 of 555 (851081)
04-19-2019 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Tangle
04-10-2019 4:05 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tangle writes:

So far your have told us that the ToE (and the concept of UCA) has no practical use


Wrong. ToE can simply refer to the mechanisms of empiricial evolution, so there are practical uses for this information.

... but even if it hadn't ut even if it hadn't it would have no effect on whether it's true or not.

A scientific theory can be "true or not"? I didn't know that.

Show me this god of yours then that intervenes routinely with the development of species on our planet. Show me how it's done - open the black box for us.

1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event.
2. I can't show you "how it's done" - I have no idea how miracles happen.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2019 4:05 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2019 5:07 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 521 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2019 7:51 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 524 by dwise1, posted 04-19-2019 12:09 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 513 of 555 (851082)
04-19-2019 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by edge
04-10-2019 9:32 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:

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


The Cambrian explosion is unique. You know that.

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.

If I were an atheist, I would also do everything in my power to deny the Cambrian explosion or delude myself into thinking it is a "regrettable misconception", as it powerfully contradicts the theory of biologicial evolution and powerfully supports creation. If I were an atheist, I would be afraid of the implications of the Cambrian explosion.

Kind of like the statement that evolution has no application in applied science, yes?

No. Empirical evolution has many applications in applied science.

My theory relies on the copious data that do exist.

Your evolutionary theory relies on a process that cannot be proven to exist. How do you prove that the inner-ear of a mammals evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile? How do you prove that a double-circulation heart can evolve from a single-circulation heart? How do you prove that such evolutions are even possible? You can't - all you've got is your atheist faith in biological evolution. Please be advised that faith is not science an that your pseudo-science doesn't impress me.

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.

The fact you must deny is that all the novel organisms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion have no evolutionary history. In the Ediacaran, marine worms, jelly-fish and spongs existed and then, oh dear ... fish and trilobites and insects (for example) appear out of nowhere. Goodbye ToE.

What is the evolutionary link between a fish and the worms, jelly-fish and sponges of the pre-Cambrian?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

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 466 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:32 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by edge, posted 04-19-2019 10:53 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 514 of 555 (851083)
04-19-2019 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by herebedragons
04-10-2019 10:15 AM


herebedragons writes:

Dredge writes:

Douglas Futuyma ... "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.

My quote came from,
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, p.15 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

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.

I accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth ... but what a pity it's not a very good explanation. This comes as no surprise - what chance does puny science have of explaining the miracle of creation?

What is important is evolutionary history - that is, what traits have been inherited from an ancestor and what traits are derived
What is the difference between inherited traits and derived traits?

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 a biologist you don't need to think of common ancestors of genera. You don't need to "root the tree" beyond the genus you're studying. It's a waste of time because it's useless information.

Do you work in the biological sciences?

What is this - an appeal to authority? But I'll play along - No, I don't work in the biological sciences ... but my brother's best mate has a cousin who worked on a potato farm for a week.

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.

... except thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans - no one has managed to produce a organism that has crossed the genus boundary.
Oh, and let's forget the fossil record, with all those problematic gaps and sudden appearances.

Pick any creature... was it specially created or did it evolve from a common ancestor? How would you know?

I have no need to ask such questions (other than ones relating to common ancestry within a genus, which might prove useful).
I don't need to know how or when God created organisms or invent some "tree of life" that connects all life-forms ... and neither does a biologist.

The theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diverstithy of life on earth.

I don't believe you ... and no one needs to explain the diversity of life on earth - certainly, no biologist needs such an explanation in order to be competent and productive.

how it fit into the tree of life?

There is no one "tree of life" - it's a atheist myth. The Cambrian explosion reveals many "trees of life" that began with no evolutionary history.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by herebedragons, posted 04-10-2019 10:15 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by vimesey, posted 04-19-2019 4:44 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 525 by Theodoric, posted 04-19-2019 9:56 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 515 of 555 (851084)
04-19-2019 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Stile
04-10-2019 1:21 PM


Stile writes:

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.


Nonsense.

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.

More nonsense. Your logic fails - it's not necessary to accept that "all life is connected" in order to accept that "life evolves from previous life". For example, one can breed a sheep dog from a wolf without accepting that all life shares a common ancestor (or even being aware of such a concept).

I suspect you are mindlessly parroting a myth that you've been brainwashed with, and are not actually thinking about what you're saying. You've been conned.

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

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School (Boston Globe, 23 Oct, 2005).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Stile, posted 04-10-2019 1:21 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by Stile, posted 04-22-2019 8:53 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 516 of 555 (851085)
04-19-2019 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by RAZD
04-11-2019 10:36 AM


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

honorary degrees are not issued in specific fields.


They will make an exception for me - because I am exceptional. You are not exceptional - compared to me, you are a mediocrity.

Theoretical evolution is the theory of evolution (hint - theory β†’ theoretical).

Try telling that to Douglas Futuyma, who says "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution.

You evolutionists can't even agree on what a "theory" is!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2019 10:36 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2019 7:25 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 526 by Theodoric, posted 04-19-2019 10:09 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 517 of 555 (851086)
04-19-2019 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by edge
04-14-2019 9:20 AM


Okay, then you agree that the theory of evolution is useful, yes?

Depends on what you mean by "the theory of evolution".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by edge, posted 04-14-2019 9:20 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by edge, posted 04-19-2019 10:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 945
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 518 of 555 (851088)
04-19-2019 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 514 by Dredge
04-19-2019 3:15 AM


What is this - an appeal to authority?

Too bloody right we appeal to authority ! It’s a whole crap load better than an appeal to ignorance or delusion.

There are two planes on the runway - one is piloted by a qualified pilot, with 5,000 flights under her belt, and the other by someone who has never flown a plane, but who tells you that the scientists should not be listened to and that the reason planes don’t fall out of the sky is that God holds them up in the air.

Which plane do you get on ?


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 514 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:15 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6745
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


(1)
Message 519 of 555 (851089)
04-19-2019 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Dredge
04-19-2019 2:09 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:

1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event.

I agree. That's why it never happens.

2. I can't show you "how it's done" - I have no idea how miracles happen.

And you can't show us any of these miracles nor the imagined god that does them either. It's almost like they don't exist isn't it?


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 512 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:09 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 520 of 555 (851091)
04-19-2019 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by Dredge
04-19-2019 3:43 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
Try telling that to Douglas Futuyma, who says "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution.

Sounds a lot like what I said. Perhaps you are looking too hard for a single concise definition, when there are a bunch of variations on a theme definitions. The trouble is I see no conflict between the variations saying essentially the same thing, because ...

You evolutionists can't even agree on what a "theory" is!

... a (scientific) theory is an explanation of the known evidence, piecing it all together so that you can make predictions to gain more knowledge of the subject, and test the validity of the theory. Curiously you can explain the same thing several different ways, as should be self-evident from the variety of responses to your posts explaining the same things in a variety of ways.

Enjoy


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 516 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 521 of 555 (851092)
04-19-2019 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Dredge
04-19-2019 2:09 AM


does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus
1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event.

If you are saying that a species from one genus evolves into an existing species from another existing genus, then you don't have a clue to what evolution says or what the evidence shows.

If you are saying that a species from one genus evolves into an new species from another existing genus, then you don't have a clue to what evolution says or what the evidence shows.

If you are saying that a species from one genus evolves into an new species that is placed in a new genus (becoming the "type" species for that genus), and think that is supernatural, then you don't understand how species and genera are named and classified in Linnaean taxonomy. This is what the Pelycodus evolution shows in Message 303, evidence that you just ignored with an ignorant comment in Message 342:

Hey thanks - that's very interesting. The supernatural creation of a different genus (Notharctus from Pelycodus) is actually clearly documented in the fossil record - God is great!

Such classifications are basically arbitrary names used to identify the evidence. What is clearly documented is that the nomenclature was changed because the species was seen as sufficiently different from the original Pelycodus ralstoni species to warrant a new genus name. There is nothing supernatural about human made name tags. Other examples of such naming changes are common in virtually all branches of the tree of life. For example walking stick insects in this pdf (download):

http://www.nature.com/...421/n6920/extref/nature01313-s1.pdf

Many different genera and species related by evolution from a common ancestor. That's just a small branch on the tree of life.

It's like a family tree, if you don't have names (first and last) it is difficult to discuss the relationships between the generations. Taxonomy is just a naming convention for clarity of discussion.

"Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." Nothing supernatural to be seen here, move along ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : more


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 512 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:09 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 522 of 555 (851096)
04-19-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Dredge
04-19-2019 2:35 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
The Cambrian explosion is unique. You know that.

So was the Permian extinction event. So was the K-Pg extinction event. So was the break-up of Pangea and the formation of the Moon.

How does a 'unique' event disprove the theory of evolution?

If I were an atheist, I would also do everything in my power to deny the Cambrian explosion or delude myself into thinking it is a "regrettable misconception", as it powerfully contradicts the theory of biologicial evolution and powerfully supports creation. If I were an atheist, I would be afraid of the implications of the Cambrian explosion.

Mere assertions. How does the Cambrian explosion contradict the theory of evolution? So far, all we have is assertions.

No. Empirical evolution has many applications in applied science.

And the theory of evolution has myriad applications in science.

So there ...

Your evolutionary theory relies on a process that cannot be proven to exist.

To which process do you refer?

How do you prove that the inner-ear of a mammals evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile?

(Sigh...) Once again, the YEC community has to be schooled on the difference between evidence and proof. No on is trying to 'prove' that something happened. In this case, we simply know that it happened. The theory of evolution explains that transition.

How do you prove that a double-circulation heart can evolve from a single-circulation heart?

No one is trying t 'prove' any such thing. The theory of evolution explains the transition.

How do you prove that such evolutions are even possible?

Since they happened, the must be possible.

You are not getting this. The problem is that we know changes have occurred. We also know that some processes for change actually exist. And we know that there is no evidence for supernatural intervention.

You can't - all you've got is your atheist faith in biological evolution.

We can only 'prove' with the weight of evidence, to a reasonable person. So, I agree that we cannot 'prove' anything to some people who are unwilling to learn.

Please be advised that faith is not science an that your pseudo-science doesn't impress me.

And so .... what have you got beside faith?

The fact you must deny is that all the novel organisms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion have no evolutionary history. In the Ediacaran, marine worms, jelly-fish and spongs existed and then, oh dear ... fish and trilobites and insects (for example) appear out of nowhere. Goodbye ToE.

Not really. The main difference between Ediacaran fossils and Cambrian fossils (not speaking as a biologist) is the development of hard body parts that could be preserved more readily. Hence, the "explosion".

By the way, what insects do you find in the Cambrian?

And how do primitive jawless of the Cambrian fish compare to a modern lake trout? How many 'explosions' do you need to get from one to the other?

What is the evolutionary link between a fish and the worms, jelly-fish and sponges of the pre-Cambrian?

Search me, what do you think? There are plenty of transitional fossils in other instances.

The point is that there are more 'primitive' forms in the Precambrian that were beginning to develop some of the characteristics of Cambrian life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:35 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 2:37 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 523 of 555 (851097)
04-19-2019 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by Dredge
04-19-2019 3:47 AM


Depends on what you mean by "the theory of evolution".

Most of us here have a pretty good idea of the topic of the forum. If you are confused, we can discuss your problem.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:47 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(2)
Message 524 of 555 (851098)
04-19-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Dredge
04-19-2019 2:09 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
1. If you see a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus, that is a supernatural event.

Or else it's in an episode of Star Trek: TNG through ENT. They always played far too fast and loose with DNA. Add to that the common sci-fi movie/TV trope of a light and stable alien element that's not on the Periodic Table (HINT: all elements up to Number 120 are all present or accounted for).

But just exactly where did you get your stupid trope from? Every single time a creationist uses it, that tells us immediately that they have no idea what evolution is nor how it works.

Please explain to us why you would think that that is what we should expect from evolution. Please explain to us what your special misunderstanding of evolution is. We really want to know how you misunderstand evolution so that we can understand how you could arrive at such a stupidly false conclusion.

candle2 shares this misunderstanding of yours, but he refuses to tell us what his misunderstanding is. I doubt that you will do any better, because honest discussion is simply not in the mental make-up of a creationist. For example, you support YEC beliefs, yet you refuse to discuss them. I had a 20-year correspondence with a staunch YEC (ie, he absolutely believed in a young earth and had converted because of YEC claims) who in all that time absolutely refused to discuss any YEC claim at all. You (plural) know that your claims are false and indefensible, which is why you do not even try.

So, what is your misunderstanding of evolution that led you to make the quoted statement?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:09 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6040
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 525 of 555 (851118)
04-19-2019 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Dredge
04-19-2019 3:15 AM


What is this - an appeal to authority?

Before you think of suggesting a logical fallacy, you should understand the fallacy.
I suggest this site as a good primer.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
This is the explanation there of appeal to authority.

quote:
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.



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 514 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:15 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
323334
35
3637Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019