Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
79 online now:
(79 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1051 of 1385 (853105)
05-22-2019 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by Dredge
05-21-2019 11:32 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism!

Practically no one adheres to 'Darwinian gradualism' any more. Please try to catch up to the 1970's.

Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes.

The point being?

And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious!

You are easily amused by false arguments. What is really pathetic is your complete lack of an intersection with modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 11:32 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 1052 of 1385 (853106)
05-22-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Faith
05-22-2019 12:10 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
If I'm wrong I hope he'll come by and explain his views better.

That would not be typical troll behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2497
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(1)
Message 1053 of 1385 (853108)
05-22-2019 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Dredge
05-21-2019 11:12 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Dredge writes:

The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff

I don't know what puff is, but it is an accurate description. Every new fossil discovery makes the record a little less incomplete, so science seems to be working properly.

Dredge writes:

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.

Do you have a reference for where he says this?

I assume he is talking about discovered fossils when he refers to the fossil record, so obviously we have we have the fossils we have discovered so far.

Also obviously, the complete fossil record includes all the discovered fossils and all the undiscovered fossils and all the gaps.

The only way Bechly can support his quack theory is by intentionally ignoring evidence.

Dredge writes:

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.

They are predicted by paleontological and geological theory. The ToE explains them.

You are correct, the Theory of Evolution, cherry picks ALL the evidence, that's the point, to explain ALL the evidence.

Dredge writes:

That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances.

This may be end up being true for some, but as discoveries are made some gaps disappear and sudden appearances turn out not to be sudden after all.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 11:12 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1092 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2019 3:47 AM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 1289 by Larni, posted 07-06-2019 11:25 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8149
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1054 of 1385 (853110)
05-22-2019 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Faith
05-22-2019 12:10 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
Faith writes:

I don't know how he puts it all together, he just seems to believe in an old earth and to some extent in evolution too. If I'm wrong I hope he'll come by and explain his views better.

Well you could ask him to answer this - it's what I've attempted to pull out of his muddle; so far he doesn't seem to want to.

quote:
Just to clarify a few things that you believe.

The earth is very old - let's say 3.4bn years?
Your Christian god created it?
Your Christian god created simple life forms which then evolved through 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?
(Do the aliens return after the various mass extinction events- maybe after dinosaurs go extinct for instance?)
Then we get to our ape descendants where your Christian god comes back and create Homo sapiens?

Is that about it?

Did you Christian god make the aliens?

Do you worship the aliens?


Obviously he doesn't actually believe the alien stuff, he just thinks he's being clever substituting his god for aliens. Not understanding, of course, that he's introduced two unidentified and unidentifiable agents which makes whatever argument he thought he had doubly fatuous.


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 1050 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1055 of 1385 (853115)
05-22-2019 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1031 by Dredge
05-21-2019 10:21 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 10:21 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1056 of 1385 (853128)
05-22-2019 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1049 by edge
05-22-2019 12:00 PM


YEC vs OEC
IIRC Dredge is an OEC

quote:
Old Earth creationism is a form of creationism which includes gap creationism, progressive creationism, and theistic evolution.[1] Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with the scientific evidence on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the Earth, in contrast to young Earth creationism.[2]

And he has several times referred to "progressive creationism"

quote:
Progressive creationism (see for comparison intelligent design) is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."[1]

Sound familiar?

Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against.

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 1049 by edge, posted 05-22-2019 12:00 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1060 by edge, posted 05-22-2019 4:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1095 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2019 4:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1057 of 1385 (853130)
05-22-2019 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Dredge
05-21-2019 11:12 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
RAZD writes:

there is evidence for macroevolution via known evolutionary processes


Nonsense - "known evolutionary processes" demonstrate nothing more "known evolutionary process". You are conflating wishful thinking and science.

Actually it has been observed, in the field, and documented in scientific journal. Happened via mutation and selection ... known evolutionary processes, not by mystical alien invisible/undetectable fingers.

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.

Gaps were predicted by Darwin. "Sudden appearance" would be at the end of a gap, of course, and they were also well explained by Punctuated Equilibrium, something Darwin had also discussed.

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.

Curiously, the record IS rather complete "in a general sense" ... meaning that in spite of the "gaps and sudden appearances" currently in the record, we know enough of the general process from LUCA to now to get the general picture of the diversity of life over the natural history of the planet. We also know that new finds will more likely fill in the gaps than present contrary evidence. That's because of the high confidence level scientists have with the ToE being the best explanation available at this time.

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 1034 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 11:12 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2497
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(3)
Message 1058 of 1385 (853131)
05-22-2019 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1026 by Dredge
05-21-2019 9:48 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:

Thousands of people have claimed to have seen UFOs

And amazingly they are still unidentified.

Dredge writes:

on the other hand, ZERO people have claimed to have seen macroevolution.

Well, except for all the scientists who have documented speciation occurring, which is how science defines macroevolution.

Dredge writes:

fossils show that macroevolution has occurred, but fossils don't tell us HOW it occurred.

Maybe not, but evidence from other branches of science do tell us how evolution occurs, so as more evidence is discovered we we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past.

Dredge writes:

Your Darwinist explanation is merely one possible explanation ... which is supported by fossil evidence, but isn't CONFIRMED by fossil evidence.

Our evolutionary theory is the only one that explains all the evidence in a scientifically consistent way.

And while you may not accept that the conclusion that life may have descended from one or more common ancestors has a practical use in "applied science" it turns out, as is often the case, that technologies and techniques developed from one field find useful applications in many other fields.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1026 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 9:48 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1081 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:28 AM Tanypteryx has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1059 of 1385 (853132)
05-22-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by Dredge
05-21-2019 11:32 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
RAZD writes:

And curiously, (micro)evolutionary change is still what the evidence shows


Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism!

But not to evolution in general. Even Darwin rejected universal gradualism. There is evidence of gradualism in the forminafera fossil record, and there is evidence of more rapid evolution and stasis (eg punk eek) in the fossil record. All known evolutionary processes.

Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes.

Wrong.

And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious!

Except they did not appear "out of nowhere" ...

That's 3 wrongs in 3 sentences. You really appear to know not that you know naught about this topic.

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 1035 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 11:32 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1063 by Phat, posted 05-22-2019 10:52 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 1084 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:47 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1096 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2019 4:15 AM RAZD has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1060 of 1385 (853138)
05-22-2019 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by RAZD
05-22-2019 3:00 PM


Re: YEC vs OEC
IIRC Dredge is an OEC

Apparently, Dredge thinks the earth is billions of years old but humans have only been around for 10ky.

This strikes me as a bit of cognitive dissonance and cherry-picking of the Bible.

In post 556, Dredge comments that the Bible is historical and that the reported genealogies are valid.

It struck me at that time that perhaps Dredge believes the earth to be something 'more than 10ky' in age, which would hardly qualify him as a legitimate old earther.

But we may never really know, considering the cryptic and sometimes contradictory nature of his posts.

Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against.

Good luck on that. I don't know if we can assume that someone is trying to make sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2019 3:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by JonF, posted 05-23-2019 9:04 AM edge has responded
 Message 1073 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2019 11:23 PM edge has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5838
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 1061 of 1385 (853142)
05-22-2019 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Faith
05-22-2019 12:10 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
We should start a new designation. Young/Old Earth Creationist (YOEC).

The vocalization of which would come out as yokel.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by Phat, posted 05-22-2019 10:45 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15362
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1062 of 1385 (853148)
05-22-2019 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by AZPaul3
05-22-2019 7:03 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
That would be funnier if I were laughing at *them* instead of examining myself. For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by AZPaul3, posted 05-22-2019 7:03 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:36 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15362
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1063 of 1385 (853149)
05-22-2019 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by RAZD
05-22-2019 3:21 PM


The Evidence Screams For Validation
I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it.

By the same standard, I respect the contrarian views of the educated members here at EvC and thank them for their patience, humility, and willingness to share what they know with many of us who don't.

Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2019 3:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2019 1:16 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 1065 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2019 6:46 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16859
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 1064 of 1385 (853150)
05-23-2019 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1063 by Phat
05-22-2019 10:52 PM


Re: The Evidence Screams For Validation
quote:

Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.

That really depends on what you mean by “Creationism”. As the idea is usually understood the evidence is very much against it.

Creationism started by endorsing fixity of species - which was reasonable for a long time, before fossils were recognised as the remains of living creatures. Historical evidence did not show signs of change. Egyptian tomb art, for instance - and their animal mummies showed recognisable species. Artificial selection could modify form, but it did not create new species.

Creationism carried on endorsing that for a long time, even after the fossil evidence was understood. But that changed in more recent decades. Granted the reason for that change was the realisation that there were too many species to fit on Noah’s Ark - but still it is significant that they endorsed evolution as the answer. Even now Faith is extremely uncomfortable with that and wished that creationists wouldn’t admit it.

However, that raises a question. Granted that evolution works to the level of producing species and genera can it go even further ? The evidence does not reveal any convenient boundaries or limits that would restrict evolution to the Creationist “kinds”. The evidence for evolution does cross the assumed boundaries - the taxonomic “tree of life” is a single tree, not a collection of little shrubs. Even if we reject the “transitional fossil” label for the more descriptive “anatomical intermediate” we do have many such fossils and they do support the idea of evolutionary transitions. Genetic evidence, too, points to common ancestry beyond the level where creationists would be happy.

It seems unreasonable, then, to treat that sort of creationism as a scientifically or even intellectually valid point of view. The “kind” concept lacks even any theological validation beyond “solving” the problem of room in the Ark. Why then, should anyone other than those apologists who find it necessary to answer the Ark problem consider it at all likely to be true ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by Phat, posted 05-22-2019 10:52 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1083 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:44 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1065 of 1385 (853158)
05-23-2019 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1063 by Phat
05-22-2019 10:52 PM


Re: The Evidence Screams For Validation
Message 1062: ... For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. ...

Becoming Deist? Christian Deist?

... Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.

Message 1063: I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it.

Logical fallacy of popularity, ie not a valid reason. Seems more like reluctance to me.

Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.

I was told (by Mr Jack IIRC) that I was by definition a creationist when I first visited here, because I believe god/s created the universe, so that really opens up a spectrum of creationism versus "Biblical Creationism" (young, old, etc), ID etc.

The Evidence Screams For Validation

It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence. Belief in a young earth is patently/provably false (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1), as is belief in an actual world wide global flood.

Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and idée fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.

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 1063 by Phat, posted 05-22-2019 10:52 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1085 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:54 AM RAZD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021