|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
And fossils confirm nothing at all about what caused these changes.
We have the rodents in the Cretaceous through pretty much the entire radiation of mammals extent today as our example of microevolution resulting in a wide deep spread of macroevolution. We even have cow-like hippo things turning into fish-like whale things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Thanks, I'll try it. If it doesn't improve things, I expect you to pay for the aluminium foil I wasted.
Dredge writes: my aluminium hat is shaped like a radar dish. I haven't received any transmissions yet You might want to try the Fedora style. I understand the folds are more conducive to the alien communication waveform.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
We have the ToE which is so much better, so accurate, so successful, so predictive.
Yeah, right ... yet so many palaeontologists point out that there is very little evidence of evolution in the rocks! But hey, who cares what paleontologists think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
All I need to know is that genetic engineering has the potential to reshape the genome such that massive changes in morphology are possible.
If the genius doesn't know anything about the subject then why is he expounding on it? That's not genius. That's egomaniac delusion.
Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I'm not a YEC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Thousands of people have claimed to have seen UFOs - on the other hand, ZERO people have claimed to have seen macroevolution. Dredge writes:
My aliens are as invisible as your macroevolution. Macroevolution is seen in every comparison of genomes: You're getting ahead of yourself - fossils show that macroevolution has occurred, but fossils don't tell us HOW it occurred. Your Darwinist explanation is merely one possible explanation ... which is supported by fossil evidence, but isn't CONFIRMED by fossil evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
I didn't ask why "you would WANT to know the answer to" such questions. I asked why I - or more to the point - why a biologist would NEED to ask such questions. Why do you as a biologist NEED to link an extant organism you are studying to some distant ancestor that lived millions of years ago? I contend that doing so achieves nothing of any practical benefit - in other words, it's a useless exercise and a waste of time.
How could you possibly know if all members of a genus shared a common ancestor? How could you know if several genera shared a common ancestor. For example: in the cat family, Felidae, there are at least 14 extant genera. Are each of these separate creations? or is each of the 8 lineages a separate creation? Or is the whole family descended from a common ancestor - as most creationists claim? What is your criteria for determining the answer?
Dredge writes:
Why would I need to answer these questions? Well, I guess you wouldn't, seeing as how you are not a biologist and do not study biology or biological systems. If you did... these ARE questions you would want to know the answer to. If you don't know what the ancestral state of a character is, how can you determine what the derived state is? How would you determine what traits were locally adapted? How would you determine how selection is affecting the character?
By "ancestral state" I take it you mean the ancestral state of an extant organism. But that's not what I'm talking about - obviously. You haven't yet explained to me how the theory of common descent is useful in your work. (Note: For Pete's sake don't confuse the "theory of common descent" with "common descent" - the latter is obviously useful in a practical sense.) Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Fossils reveal that "evolution" has occurred, but fossils don't confirm any explanation for that "evolution".
And testing? Every new fossil found is another test. You've heard of tiktaalik, right? Then you know that its discovery was a product of prediction from ToE.
One find in scientific terms is regarded as no more than luck - oh, except in evolutionary "science", in which the accepted norms of statistics are ignored when convenient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanyptyerx writes:
What the evolutionary ancestors of a trilobite? Algae? Bacteria?
Curious that all this is incorrect. You have presented no evidence that contradicts the ToE. Which "novel" phyla?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
I agree - but fossils don't tell us HOW.
Fossils give us great big clues to what happened and when
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Inexplicable gaps and sudden appearances of novel creatures in the fossil record - insects, for example.
What are your criteria for determining 'outside tampering'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Ah yes, but fossils don't confirm that Darwinian evolution is responsible for that progression. And insects appearing out of nowhere, for example, is hardly evidence of Darwinian evolution. Other huge gaps in the fossil record don't support Darwinism - they contradict it.
Dredge writes: 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! The progression is the evidence that evolution occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
1. Aliens manipulated DNA to produce nested hierarchies. That capability is evident in the ancestral patterns of extant creatures. You need to know more than that. You need to explain the following, and this is just a good start: 1. The twin nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics. 2. The difference in divergence between exons and introns. 3. The pattern of transition, transversion, and CpG substitution mutations. 4. Orthologous endogenous retroviruses and transposon insertions, and the pattern of divergence between the LTR's of a single ERV. As for 1-4, all these phenomena (which any Grade 7 student would be familiar with) are explained by 1. above - they are legacies of genetic engineering performed by aliens over millions of years.
Dredge writes: Believing that your puny mechanisms of evolutionary can turn a rodent into a whale is grand delusion. Only people who lack scientific evidence to support their claims stoop to calling people deluded. If you had evidence you would present it.One group of scientists is given the task of producing a whale from a rodent using the principles of mutations and artificial selection. Another group of scientists is given the task of producing a whale from a rodent using the principles of genetics engineering. Given that thousands of years of humans using mutations and artificial selection has failed to produce anything even close to macroevolution in any plants or animals, which group of scientists do you think is going to have the most success? (You don't have to be Einstein to come up with the correct answer!) Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Nonsense - "known evolutionary processes" demonstrate nothing more "known evolutionary process". You are conflating wishful thinking and science.
there is evidence for macroevolution via known evolutionary processes sadly - for you - you are (still) wrong again. The changes documented in the fossil record show the pattern of proximity in space/time and in degree of evolution predicted by the ToE, and that are actually seen and documented in living species today: this is sufficient to say they are explained by the ToE. This what validation looks like.
Oh, and I suppose all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record are predicted by ToE as well! Your quack theory relies on cheery-picking the evidence.
Curiously, missing information is not contradictory.
The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff - Gunter Bechly considers the fossil record to be "saturated" - meaning, we have enough fossil evidence now to conclude that the record is complete in a general sense. That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism! Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes. And curiously, (micro)evolutionary change is still what the evidence showsAnd apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious! out of nowhere" is really meaningless hyperbole in terms of the fossil record
Tell that to Gunter Bechly. Deny the evidence, if that's the best you can do.
It is amusing the lengths you've gone to in order to argue for an alien conspiracy theory instead of a fact based analysis ... because reality challenges your cherished strongly held beliefs (resulting in cognitive dissonance and resulting denial).
It amusing the lengths you've gone to in order to deny that my "aliens" theory is light years ahead of your simplistic, still-stuck-in-the-nineteenth-century Neo-Darwinism (a horse-drawn cart with new wheels is still a horse-drawn cart).The history of science is littered with the remains of mediocre, conservative thinkers who couldn't adapt to change.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024