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


Message 378 of 1385 (850209)
04-03-2019 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
04-03-2019 1:25 PM


Faith writes:
You have an obligation to present the findings in each of those articles
No I don't, You asked for the evidence, there it is.
if you expect me to take any of it seriously.
You have to be kidding...
However, just from the titles there's no reason to think most of it has anything to do with the ToE anyway,
Wow, you read the titles! That's more rigorous than usual.
just the usual "microevolution."
Microevolution *is* evolution as described by the ToE.
Oh yes what I said is true. Nothing you've said answers any of it.
Any you knew that without reading any of it...
And again you merely assert that dredge was given the examples.
Jesus woman, do you think I'd lie about it? I'm not a sodding creationist. The first of several times I give him the evidence was in post 167.

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 377 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 7:35 PM Tangle has not replied

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


(1)
Message 388 of 1385 (850229)
04-04-2019 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Dredge
04-04-2019 2:52 AM


Dredge writes:
According to this rather odd definition of ToE (apparently, a collection of facts and principles adds up to a scientific theory!),
You're still fighting to misunderstand. Any scientific theory has to explain observed facts. The 'collection of facts' is the data, the theory provides the information to understand them.
A room full of unlabelled fossils is data. It tells us very little. When the fossils are ordered in time and in families groups, patterns emerge. When we also have the data on how organisms change according to changing environments, how organisms can be organised into detailed taxonomical categories and (new information these observations from micro-biology confirm them), science can the pull all this information into a general theory that explains it all.
That's what science has done over a period of 150 years. At a general level the ToE is a settled piece of science. Only religious zealots think otherwise but they have been incapable of even denting it.
The priciples of the ToE are drawn from the theory - common descent, mutability of species, competition, survival of the fittest etc. The UCA is not part of the theory, it's a possible consequence of the principle of common descent.
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. You'd be far better employed trying to understand the theory than quibbling pointessly about your misunderstanding of scientific terms.
there are certainly practical uses for ToE.
You're more than a bit daft aren't you?

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 387 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 2:52 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-04-2019 8:37 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 404 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 422 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:32 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 390 of 1385 (850232)
04-04-2019 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Dredge
04-04-2019 3:36 AM


Dredge writes:
Tangle can't find any articles or papers that describe practical uses for "the theory of evolution" - the best he can come up with is an article describing practical uses for the "evolutionary principles". I contend that one cannot find or google any practical uses for "the theory of evolution" because ToE necessarily includes the concept of UCA - a concept that has no practical use.
The principles of evolution make up the Theory of Evolution. They are part and parcel of the same thing. THE SAME THING.
You've been given many examples of practical uses of the ToE. Here they are again
quote:
Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists
Applications of evolution - Wikipedia
That link gives you links to many other papers, the first of which is the one I've shown you twice now which provides practical scientific example of its use. Did you notice that the first paragraph actually uses the precise words your so hung up on and say never appear? Did you also notice that the wiki is only first result from the google search term
practical uses for the theory of evolution
There are thousands of others. Impossible though you think it is.
CA215: Practical uses of evolution.
It would really help if you tried to understand what you disagree with, rather than dick about pretending knowledge. At a basic level the ToE is not hard to understand.

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 389 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 3:36 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:38 AM Tangle 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

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


Message 408 of 1385 (850261)
04-05-2019 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:12 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:
My progressive creation model also explains why all life on earth appears to be genetically related.
Can you show what difference there is between 'progressive creation' and evolution please.

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 403 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:12 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:59 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 411 of 1385 (850264)
04-05-2019 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:16 AM


Dredge writes:
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"?
For fuck sake, Dredge, Berkeley are trying to reduce a complex scientific concept into a publicly understandable sound bite.
If you emailed Berkley they'd explain to you what I've already explained to you that there may not be a single UCA, but just as Newtonian Gravitational Theory is correct enough for all everyday uses but requires Einsteinian explantions when things get more complex, common descent is good enough to get the idea across for the vast majority of species that have ever lived.
Now grow up and learn something.

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 404 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:49 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 413 of 1385 (850266)
04-05-2019 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:29 AM


Dredge writes:
Thus, it is easy to find articles or papers that detail practical uses for "evolutionary theory/principles",
Thank you.
but as I've already pointed out, articles or papers detailing practical uses for "the theory of evolution" don't exist
I believe there are drugs available that might help you with your schizophrenia.
ie, the concept of UCA can't b separated from ToE.
The concept of UCA is a prediction/ possible conclusion of the ToE. Sure. There is no problem or contradiction.

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 410 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:29 AM Dredge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 432 of 1385 (850391)
04-07-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Dredge
04-07-2019 1:38 AM


Dredge writes:
You are confusing my fragile, eggshell mind.
I don't think so. You're simply trolling now.
Are you saying the principles are part of the theory (in which case they are not the same thing, as the principles are a subset of the theory), or are you saying the principles and the theory are the same thing?
Either, both, I really don't care - it makes no difference. Think of Father, Son, Holy Ghost - Trinity - if it helps you.
If the latter, then you have company: Douglas J. Futuyma says, "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution."
I'm not interested in farting around with pointless word juggling. It should be clear to you by now what the components of the ToE are, if it isn't you're either an idiot or a troll but more likely both.

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 425 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:38 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:39 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 433 of 1385 (850392)
04-07-2019 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by Dredge
04-07-2019 1:59 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:
Progressive creation or PC (which is not the same as theistic evolution, btw) actually has a lot in common with Darwinian evolution:
- PC accepts that the history of life on earth is one of profound changes that could be loosely described as evolution.
- it accepts the same sequence of organisms found in the fossil record as Darwinism does
- it accepts that life on earth could be billions of years old.
- PC also accepts that evolution at the species level ("empirical evolution") can be explained by natural processes (ToE).
In other words, it's the ToE
Whales may well have descended from some kind of rodent, for example, but the large morphological changes involved were not the result of natural processes, but of divine creation.
Ah. Maybe not. Are you saying that process of evolving from 'some kind of rodent' to moden whales required your god to intervene at each/every stage?
But here is where PC departs from Darwinism - it doesn't accept that ToE (or any form of science, for that matter) can explain the history of life on earth.
In other words you can't accept the ToE for religious reasons but can't deny the evidence for the ToE. Cake and eat it eh?
.

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 427 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:59 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:31 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 438 of 1385 (850397)
04-07-2019 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Dredge
04-07-2019 3:11 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
To repeat the obvious, most evolutionary biologists are not atheists.
Dredge writes:
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 -
And if it wasn't for Darwin, most religionists would be pushing the myth that the life we see around us was put here fully formed 6,000 years ago.
My staement above, is, of course, false - like yours. There was nothing magical about either Darwin or Gould. If neither had existed the facts of evolution would have been discovered and developed by someone else. Darwin discovered what he could at the time. Many others since have discovered more - including Gould.
There is nothing about punctuated equilibrium that is a challenge to the ToE; it's merely another discovery about how it works. That's what science does; improves knowledge about how thing are. Gould, like Darwin, is a good example of good science - he (and Eldredge) followed the evidence.
And it doesn't help you either. Life began billions of years before the Cambrian and evolution continued for hundreds of millions afterwards. Insescts, fish and mammals did not exist in the Cambrian and moden man - the apparent reason for god's creation - is less than quarter of a million years old.
Your god took a hell of a long way round to get to the point. Almost like he didn't know what he was doing. Almost random eh?

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 434 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 3:11 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:13 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 465 of 1385 (850530)
04-10-2019 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Dredge
04-10-2019 3:31 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:
I didn't know ToE included "a God of the gaps".
It's your, hypothesis, you explain it.
More or less.
Which? When does he and when doesn't he? Did he start something off 3 billion years ago and then lose interest? Then pop up again in the Cambrian and have a fit of productivity then lose interest again before creating most of our modern species including man?
Did he create anthrax? HIV AIDs? Tape worms? Or was that 'normal' evolution. How come he allowed almost everything he's ever created to go extinct. Why is he so crap at this creation business?
1. I reject human evolution on religious and scientific grounds.
Pick and mix beliefs are very useful.
But I have no religious objection to the evolution of non-human creatures - however, I reject such evolution for scientific reasons.
Evolution is all of a piece, if you reject one part of it you reject it all. You have no scientific objections to evolution. Or at least if you have, you've not given us any yet.
So far your have told us that the ToE (and the concept of UCA) has no practical use, it has, but even if it hadn't it would have no effect on whether it's true or not.
You have told us that the Cambrian radiation is is some kind of proof against the ToE and that gradualism is a cornerstone of the ToE. Neither are true. If they were, there would be no ToE that holds the scientific concensus.
I've always said evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life. However, I think it's a rather poor explanation, whereas creation is an excellent explanation.
Magic is a perfect avoidance of explanation. Children are always impressed by it. But sadly magic is a black box, it actually explains nothing at all. Goddidit was used to 'explain' everything from lightening to flu. Sticking goddidit into the ToE is adding an unnecessary and unevidenced factor simply because you have an irrational belief.
All I'm doing is following the evidence, wherever it leads.
Really. 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.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 463 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:31 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:09 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 492 of 1385 (850758)
04-14-2019 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:13 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
1. If everyone believed that, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to applied science ... which just goes to show how irrelevant interpretations of ancient history (including Darwinism) are to real-world science.
Yeh, science would just think it was magic how everything worked without any coherent theory about anything, from radioactive decay, disease to stellar movements.
You might be surprised how many religionists today accept the scientific concensus that says the history of life on earth began billons of years old - science which has nothing to do with Darwin.
Nope, I'm not at all surprised. What did surprise me was how many religionists are still YECs.
1. PE is a far-fetched, band-aid measure that attempts to cover up all those "embarrassing" (Gould) gaps in the fossil record.
If you say so.
2. The untestable theory of PE is a "discovery"? Hilarious! PE is an untestable theory within an untestable theory - and this is science?
PE is an observation.
which is why I describe the history of life as PROGRESSIVE creation.
You can describe it anyway you like because you're just making it up without evidence.
Please be advised that the first human beings didn't evolve but were created from inanimate matter 6000-10000 years ago.
Well now we have it. H. sapiens did not evolve, he was placed here whole by a (Christian) God. Great, now show your workings.
And while you're at it, explain why H. Sapiens have been dated at c200,000 yo.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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 490 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:13 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2019 1:27 AM Tangle has replied

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


(1)
Message 519 of 1385 (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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:45 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 546 of 1385 (851243)
04-21-2019 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Faith
04-21-2019 12:16 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Faith writes:
What I would expect you to have trouble with is an idea that proves the ToE is false and completely contradicts the notion of time periods in Geology.
After all this time, you still don't get it.
If something was discovered that completely contradicted the ToE and/or geological time periods it would be enormously exciting to all scientists. Scientists *want* to prove stuff wrong, it would make their careers. It would open up massive new areas of research.
Unfortunately though the evidence supporting the theories is now so overwhelming that it is vanishingly unlikely that anything material will be found to change the core theories - though they will almost certainly be modified.
Science is not immutable, it's not a religious belief. That seems difficult for you guys to understand no matter what we say.

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 543 by Faith, posted 04-21-2019 12:16 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 561 of 1385 (851406)
04-24-2019 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 556 by Dredge
04-24-2019 1:27 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago.
It strikes me that you've got the worst of all possible positions here. You tell us that you accept that the earth and the creatures in it are millions of years old and that you accept evolution. Or at least some bits of it that you ad hoc prefer.
Then you tell us that man himself is less than 10,000 years old and you know that by adding up mythical bible story characters' ages. The earth and all the organisms on it is old but man is young and presumably did not evolve, but was created.
It's hard to unpick this mess but it strikes me that you must therefore think that Adam and Eve were real and Noah and his Flood happened. So all modern animals evolved in the last 4,000 years? And all humans came from Noah's family? And all those human fossils and descendants are imaginary?
God knows why you're confusing yourself with niche arguments about what happened in the Cambrian.

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 556 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2019 1:27 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by dwise1, posted 04-24-2019 11:27 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 612 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 12:54 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