|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,773 Year: 4,030/9,624 Month: 901/974 Week: 228/286 Day: 35/109 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
No, you are confused. The aliens are the cause, not the mechanism. Your dud ToE doesn't even have a cause!
Your aliens are part of a mechanism. The mechanism should be detectable, or at least known by some inference.
Genetic engineering as a mechanism is as detectable as your mechanisms of evolution. The difference is, your evo-mechanisms can only demonstrate puny little microevolutions, whereas the potential of genetic engineering to produce macroevolutions cannot be doubted and has in fact already been demonstrated by scientists via observations and repeatable experiments. Where is your demonstration of observable macroevolution? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
I have - millions of people believe in the existence of aliens based on evidence. The fossil record is also scientific evidence of aliens.
You have not presented evidence for such agents. It's in the patterns.
Oh, you mean a "pattern" such as inexplicable jump from assymetrical to bilateral? Or from worm to insect? That's funny!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Okay, let's check the title of this thread . " Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?" You should have just said, "I can't think of any practical medical use for the theory of common descent".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
It's funny you should mention that - I once paid (a carton of beer) a motorcycle mechanic to do some brain surgery on me, and as far as I can tell, it worked out just fine.
And apparently plumbers are not qualified to do brain surgery. Later. It might be kind of fun, but I found the passage to be mind-numbing on the first pass.
My mind feels numb most to the time, yet I am still capable of producing ingenious thoughts in the form of beautiful science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Correct.
The earth is very old - let's say 3.4bn years? Your Christian god created it?
Not quite correct. My Christian God created it (ie, not "god" but "God").
Your Christian god created simple life forms which then evolved through natural processes into more complex lifeforms?
Incorrect. God created simple life forms which "evolved" via non-natural processes into more complex lifeforms.
Until they got to the Cambrian, then aliens got to work with their genetic engineering? Then normal evolution occurs again for the next 600million years or so? Then we get to our ape descendants where your Christian god comes back and create Homo sapiens?
Incorrect. My "aliens" theory has nothing at all to do with my "God" theory. They are two separate theories. I wear two different hats - my "God" hat and my "Science" hat, depending on the audience. When I'm wearing my Science hat, my "aliens' theory is my best SCIENTIFIC theory for the what was responsible the fossil record. But having said that, I don't believe my or any "best scientific theory" for what is responsible for the fossil record, because I believe science cannot explain what is responsible for the fossil record. When I'm wearing my God hat, I believe the fossil record can be explained only by miracles and divine intervention. So I believe my God theory, but not my "aliens" theory. My "aliens" theory is simply a demonstration the stupendous brilliance of my scientific mind and an attempt to win a Nobel Prize for Science.
Do the aliens return after the various mass extinction events- maybe after dinosaurs go extinct for instance?
Extinction events can be explained by some unforeseen natural event that the aliens had no control over, or they can be explained by the aliens getting bored with a certain line of genetic experimentation and starting again on a different tact - although other aliens scenarios can be thought of besides the "boredom" hypothesis.
Do you worship the aliens?
No way! I worship only God. The "aliens" are just a fantasy masquerading as science . you know, just like Darwinism is. 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. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
A probable explanation for that is, I am a genius and you are a intellectual mediocrity.
I have never thought of genetic engineering as a mechanism of evolution Would you consider stem cell therapies to try and cure an individual's genetic disease, genetic engineering? Or is genetic engineering strictly modifying the germ line?
Er, why have you posed me this question immediately after I said "I know next to nothing about genetic engineering"? A genius doesn't know everything! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Prejudice is easy - the hard part is proving that it's "crap".
I guess I will never know why you posted Gelernter's crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Er, no . that's not how it works - you made the claim that it's crap, so the onus is on your to prove your claim. It's up to him to prove it's not crap. Furthermore, I made no claim about Gelernter's opinion on the fossil record; I merely posted his thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
What a pity the theory of common descent can't be tested using the aforementioned method ... or any other method. A theory that can't be tested doesn't even qualify as science.
"The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else." (reportedly from an essay by Carl Sagan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I'm glad you said "If", because I think you are talking nonsense - my understanding is, only about 2% of the human genome shares 95-89% DNA with chimps.
If chimps have somewhere around 95-98% human DNA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I fear you're talking rubbish. Fossils confirm that life-forms on earth have changed over time, but fossils can't confirm or validate the cause of those changes. Fossils don't validate ToE and its mechanisms anymore than they validate my "aliens" theory and its mechanism of genetic engineering.
... except that each fossil currently valides the ToE when it fits into the temporal/spatial matrix and the explanation provided by the ToE for getting from one spcies to another via known mechanisms of evolution. Neither aliens nor "progressive creation" provide as complete an explanation of all facets of the evidence.
And ToE does? You're dreaming.
[qs] Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Curious that you ignore all the evidence that contradicts ToE - where is the evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of trilobites, fish and insects? Where are the missing links between the Ediacaran fauna all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion? The evidence for these "ancestors" doesn't exist! Curious that aliens and gods only created evidence that completely mimics what the process of evolution would produce and only what the ToE predicts would occur. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
You're dreaming. It's impossible for fossils to "confirm" anything about random mutations or any other mechanism of evolution or any aspect of genetics. It can be confirmed by both the pattern of physical differences and similarities and the same for genetic differences and similarities. We find a correlation between the nested hierarchies in both sets of data which confirms the mechanisms of vertical inheritance and random mutations. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
"may not have"? ... more like, "has no need at all to" - UCA is useless.
Applied biology in medicine may not have "consider UCA theory" as part of it's checklist but that checklist wouldn't be what it is without that driving, originating principle.
Prove this nonsense claim. Supply a scientific article or paper that demonstrates that a practical use in any applied science is predicated on the concept of UCA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Ever heard of the fossil record?
Dredge writes: On the contrary, the fossil record shows abundant evidence of "outside tampering". Please provide. preferably documented in a scientific journal. I know of none. Mostly because producing a new genus was not the intent of artificial selection.
For thousands of years, humans have tried to alter the characteristics of dogs, for example, in all sorts of ways using every trick in nature's toolbox - even resorting to unnatural methods such as inbreeding - but no one has managed to produce anything but more dogs. Obviously, there are genetic limits to how much organisms can change.It was only when genetic engineering came along that the potential for producing radically different organisms was realised. Compared to genetic engineering, the mechanisms of evolution have been observed to produced only very limited and puny changes with a population. The claim that these evolutionary mechanisms can change a dinosaur into a bird (for example) are absurd and an embarrassment to science. And yet the ToE still explains all the known evidence.
... like fish and insects appearing out of nowhere in the fossil record! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024