Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 942 of 1385 (852457)
05-11-2019 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 926 by edge
05-09-2019 8:21 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:
So you agree that it is a sensible progression from colonial bacteria to soft metazoans of the Ediacaran and then to Cambrian fauna?
"a sensible progression"? Only if aliens performed genetic engineering to get from one stage to the next. You seem to be getting the fossil record confused with your evolution dreaming - the two don't line up. Where is the evidence of evolution from pre-E bacteria to E-fauna and then to the C-animals? Such evidence exists only in your evo-deluded mind.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by edge, posted 05-09-2019 8:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 6:50 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 960 by edge, posted 05-11-2019 10:17 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 943 of 1385 (852458)
05-11-2019 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 929 by JonF
05-10-2019 9:17 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
JonF writes:
Those gaps keep shrinking.
Where are the fossil ancestors of insects?
Where are the fossils that link the Ediacaran fauna to the animals that appearing during the Cambrian.
What's "shrinking" is the credibility of your Darwinian myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 929 by JonF, posted 05-10-2019 9:17 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 958 by JonF, posted 05-11-2019 8:24 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 945 of 1385 (852460)
05-11-2019 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Stile
05-10-2019 9:28 AM


Stile writes:
if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself
This is just a dumb argument - you're got it back-to-front! The question is not whether the concept of UCA needs the understanding of antibiotic resistance, but whether the understanding of antibiotic resistance needs the concept of UCA!
If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.
I totally agree. Once again, you've got your wires crossed. Of course the concept of "common ancestry" is vital to biology - even a five year-old or the village-idiot could tell you that. But we're not talking about the utility of "common ancestry" - we're talking about the utility of "the theory of common ancestry"! Do you know the difference between the two? Here's a hint: The concept of UCA is more or less the theory of common ancestry.
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine antibiotic resistance the way we do it.
What on earth are you talking about?
Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines antibiotic resistances in helpful directions.
How?
Furthermore, if accepting the concept of UCA is necessary for understanding antibiotic resistance, how can it be that I understand how the process of antibiotic resistance?
And how could any of the YEC professors of biology (that I mentioned in an earlier post) teach the principle of antibiotic resistance if accepting the concept of UCA is necessary to understanding it?
1st year Biology students: "Professor, please explain to us how antibiotic resistance develops."
YEC Professor of Biology: "Er, sorry . I don't accept the concept of UCA so I don't understand how antibiotic resistance works. If you want to someone to explain it to you, you'll have to go to a different university." Hilarious!
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 930 by Stile, posted 05-10-2019 9:28 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 953 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 7:50 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 947 of 1385 (852462)
05-11-2019 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Stile
05-10-2019 9:28 AM


Stile writes:
edicine
Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.
Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[9]
I don't understand why you have posted this - it doesn't mention the concept of UCA or even drop the slightest hint about it!
You are unable to identify a single YEC who doesn't have the idea of UCA incorporated in their research who is not "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines (medicine and/or antibiotic resistance.
This is so lame I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond to it - where is your evidence that a YEC biologist would be useless in developing drugs and vaccines? So YECs can become professors of biology, but they be useless in the field of drugs and vaccines? What a stupid claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Stile, posted 05-10-2019 9:28 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 948 of 1385 (852463)
05-11-2019 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Stile
05-10-2019 9:28 AM


qs=StileThat is, if UCA was not applicable - those creating medicine would be using some other idea as a guide, or we would not have 'new medicine antibiotic resistance' at all.[/qs] How is the concept of UCA used as a 'guide" when creating new medicines?
What the hell is "new medicine antibiotic resistance"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Stile, posted 05-10-2019 9:28 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 949 of 1385 (852464)
05-11-2019 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by edge
05-10-2019 10:38 AM


edge writes:
If you don't accept the UCA theory, then you might accept something else like like some form of voodoo.
You've missed the point of the discussion: How is accepting UCA theory essential to developing new medicines? Provide an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by edge, posted 05-10-2019 10:38 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 961 by edge, posted 05-11-2019 10:21 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 950 of 1385 (852466)
05-11-2019 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 938 by edge
05-10-2019 11:43 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
edge writes:
Are you really holding up a guy with degrees in Hebrew literature as an authority on the Cambrian explosion?
I was expecting this - apparently someone intelligent enough to be a Professor of Computer Science isn't intelligent enough to study the fossil record. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.
Now prove that he's wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by edge, posted 05-10-2019 11:43 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by edge, posted 05-11-2019 10:26 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 951 of 1385 (852467)
05-11-2019 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by AZPaul3
05-11-2019 6:31 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
AZPaul3 writes:
We got pictures. What you got?
Pictures of what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 6:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 956 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 8:07 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 952 of 1385 (852468)
05-11-2019 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 944 by AZPaul3
05-11-2019 6:50 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
AZPaul3 writes:
Would it be ok if the aliens doing all this genetic engineering were called chemistry and entropy?
No, that would add up to a superstitious fantasy akin to spontaneous generation, which is not a scientific explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 944 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 6:50 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 957 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 8:19 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 954 of 1385 (852470)
05-11-2019 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 946 by Tanypteryx
05-11-2019 7:17 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
Tanypteryx writes:
Oh, good grief! I'm not trying to find out what it is
No kidding.
I'm trying to find out if you have any knowledge about "genetic engineering," although I already know the answer.
I know next to nothing about genetic engineering.
Do you think it would be possible to make organisms evolve by genetic engineering?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 946 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-11-2019 7:17 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 964 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-12-2019 10:51 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 955 of 1385 (852471)
05-11-2019 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Stile
05-10-2019 9:28 AM


Yep, the concept of UCA is so essential to understanding antibiotic resistance you couldn't show me even one online explanation of antibiotic resistance that incorporates the concept of UCA. You're so funny!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Stile, posted 05-10-2019 9:28 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 966 of 1385 (852501)
05-12-2019 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by RAZD
05-10-2019 2:34 PM


Re: NO evidence of aliens
RAZD writes:
With no evidence of aliens, nor of any mechanism by which the insert their "genetic engineering" during observed processes of evolution, there is no basis for making this assumption.
If you can push ToE without producing any observable macroevolution then I can push my "aliens did it" theory without producing an observable alien. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Particularly as the ToE does explain it without the use of aliens (Occam's wicked razor). This is why the ToE has been validated and the "alien genetic experiment" concept has not.
It will take time for scientists to get used to my new theory. I predict that in ten years time, my "aliens did it" theory will have largely replaced the outdated and childishly inadequate theory of Darwinian evolution. So I suggest that the sooner you wake up and grow up out the nineteenth century, the better.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2019 2:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 971 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2019 8:39 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 1021 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2019 12:02 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 967 of 1385 (852502)
05-12-2019 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 937 by Tanypteryx
05-10-2019 11:15 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
Tanypteryx writes:
I have no idea why you would post this crap from a whackjob like David Gelernter. "A mere 70-odd million years."
Why do you call David Gelernter a whackjob? He's not more a whackjob than I am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-10-2019 11:15 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 979 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-12-2019 9:32 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 968 of 1385 (852503)
05-12-2019 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 956 by AZPaul3
05-11-2019 8:07 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
AZPaul3 writes:
Really? Did you lose track of the conversation?
You've got "pictures" of macroevolution? What does that even mean?
You have a video of macroevolution actually occurring?
Or do you mean pictures of fossils, the gaps between which you fill with ToE? If so, these are the same pictures of fossils, the gaps between which I fill with aliens performing genetic engineering.
Could you be recieving alien transmissions over that aluminum hat you wear?
You mean "receiving".
For your information, my aluminium hat is shaped like a radar dish. I haven't received any transmissions yet, but that doesn't nullify my theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 956 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2019 8:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 974 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2019 8:51 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 969 of 1385 (852504)
05-12-2019 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by JonF
05-11-2019 8:24 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
Those particular gaps may or may not be shrinking. Others are. Not explaining everything is not in itself a reason for discarding a theory.
A nineteenth century theory based on the superstition of spontaneous generation and which is contradicted by fossil evidence are perfectly good reasons for concluding that that theory is grossly inadequate and suspect.
OTOH a fantasy like your aliens, which answers every question with "aliens did it" is identical to the creationist "God did it". It explains nothing.
1. It explains a lot more than your primitive, steam-engined Darwinism. It's a case of Spontaneous Generation v. Genetic Engineering; nineteenth-century thinking v. 21st-century thinking; steam engine v. interstellar space travel.
2. "God did it" is not a scientific theory - "aliens did it" is. "Evolution did it" is a scientific theory, but a very poor and outdated one.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by JonF, posted 05-11-2019 8:24 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 976 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2019 8:59 PM Dredge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024