Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 11:31 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, GDR, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (7 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,939 Year: 11,975/19,786 Month: 1,756/2,641 Week: 265/708 Day: 40/52 Hour: 5/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 1150 of 1319 (853904)
06-02-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1148 by AZPaul3
06-02-2019 3:34 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Again, the Theory of Evolution with both its fossils and its chemistry, tells us HOW the history of life unfolded.

I think this is an important point.

Dredge harangues us that the fossils don't tell us how life changed over time. Here, you point out that there is more than just the fossils.

Like most anti-evos, Dredge is only capable of looking at one line of evidence at a time, conveniently ignoring known chemistry, biology, physics, relative dating and general evolutionary patterns, along with the damning fact that there is no evidence to support his position. It's like he's examining one particular set of fossils under a microscope at one moment in time, while ignoring the library of existing knowledge around him.

There's really not much new in the basic operation of Dredge's line of reasoning. It's what we've seen from YECs since the beginning of discussion boards such as this. The idea is to attack a single detail in an incomplete and imperfect knowledge base and apply that uncertainty to the entire body of knowledge. Since he has the certainty borne of ignorance, it makes sense to criticize real science. To most people trained in the sciences, the argument becomes nothing but irrelevant gibberish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by AZPaul3, posted 06-02-2019 3:34 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1169 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2019 2:36 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1159 of 1319 (853970)
06-03-2019 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1155 by Dredge
06-03-2019 1:19 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
Haven’t I already answered this question? For your sake, I will reiterate: I believe my “aliens” theory is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the fossil record, according to the parameters set by modern science – ie, methodological naturalism.

No that doesn't answer my question. I asked why you defend a theory as the best scientific explanation when you don't believe it. That does not lend a whole lot of credence. In fact, it makes your argument a strawman.

I would just as soon argue that the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory because I DO believe that the evidence supports it. Arguably, that makes my theory more valid than yours.

And I haven't even got into the lack of evidence for such alien intervention which makes it NOT scientific.

However, since I believe there is more to reality than methodological naturalism, I don’t believe my “aliens” theory is the best explanation for the fossil record (notice how I didn’t say “the best SCIENTIFIC explanation”).

So this renders neither of your two theories as scientific and shows that you are just trolling this board. Is that the real reason for defending something you don't believe in?

That's fine with me, but I'll go with the evidence for now.

So I have two explanations for the fossil record, depending on which “game” I’m playing. Are you familiar with the term, “Horses for courses”?

That is an apt description of the situation. You are playing games.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1155 by Dredge, posted 06-03-2019 1:19 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1184 by Dredge, posted 06-05-2019 2:38 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1166 of 1319 (854002)
06-03-2019 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1165 by Meddle
06-03-2019 9:51 PM


Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
Well it could have been something like Keretsa brutoni which dates to 555 Ma (just scroll down to page 131, don't worry it starts on page 127).

Almost exactly as one might have predicted as a precursor to Cambrian arthropods.

Good find.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1165 by Meddle, posted 06-03-2019 9:51 PM Meddle has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1177 of 1319 (854022)
06-04-2019 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1169 by Dredge
06-04-2019 2:36 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
No, Dredge accepts the same fossil record as you do.

Just in case you were wondering about that whooshing sound, it was my point going over your head.

Here’s the problem for Darwinists: Fossils tells us nothing about the mechanism of macroevolution, ...

Yes, we understood you the first time.

You didn't read my post, did you?

... and it cannot be demonstrated that microevolution leads to macroevolution (on the contrary, thousands of years of animal and plant breeding demonstrates that there are genetic limits to how far organisms can “evolve”) . So all you have left to “explain” the fossil record is blind faith (born of atheism) in Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately blind faith is not science.

What is really unfortunate is that you are unable to comprehend the whole point of my post.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1169 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2019 2:36 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1188 of 1319 (854149)
06-05-2019 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1184 by Dredge
06-05-2019 2:38 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, because

A. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow.

B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one

C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth.


You are still not getting the point.

What makes your 'scientific' theory (which you have been promoting for some 70 pages now even though you don't believe it and can provide no mechanism), better than my scientific theory (which I accept on the basis of evidence and has a known mechanism).

Do you really think that you are adopting a scientific approach to your 'scientific' theory? Have you any familiarity with the word 'credibility'? Sorry but it all adds up to trolling.

With respect to evidence of aliens: "Lucy" - for example - might be the remains of one of the very aliens I'm talking about.

And what is the evidence that Lucy conducted genetic engineering experiments?

If you lack the intelligence and imagination and scientific aptitude and humility to accept my teachings, whose fault is that?

If, if, if ...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1184 by Dredge, posted 06-05-2019 2:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 1199 of 1319 (854333)
06-07-2019 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1195 by Dredge
06-07-2019 1:26 AM


Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
The articles says, “Keretsa shows similarities with arthropods, including antennalike appendages, but lacks distinct trunk limbs and, probably, genuine bilateral symmetry” ...

So it has similarities with trilobites along with some more primitive aspects.

And how does this disqualify it as a possible transitional fossil?

(the “antennalike appendages” claim sounds rather optimistic, btw)

Thank you for your opinion, but 'antennalike' is what we might expect as a precursor feature for antennae.

This critter sounds a long way from a trilobite, which features genuine symmetry, distinct articulated trunk limbs, compound eyes, very distinct antennae, gut and brain.

Yes, it looks less developed, does it not? But isn't that exactly what we would expect for a creature living millions of years prior to trilobites?

Wikipedia (Trilobite”) says, “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) DO NOT SEEM TO EXIST.” (emphasis added)

(But wait! Wiki then goes on to say, “That trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods before the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary is still reasonable to assume.” Well, of course it is – what else would you expect a bunch of “blind faith” evolutionists fanatics to say?!)


You left out this part:

quote:
"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes).[1][20]"

Do you see the word "evidence" in there?

So your opinion is noted but I suggest that it is colored by the blind faith of a YEC/ID fanatic who has little familiarity with science or the concept of evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1195 by Dredge, posted 06-07-2019 1:26 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1201 of 1319 (854336)
06-07-2019 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1200 by JonF
06-07-2019 9:12 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Both are true.

Duh.


I wasn't sure how to respond to that post and decided to withhold my reaction. What's really amazing is that this comes from a person who presumes to tell us about how science operates.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by JonF, posted 06-07-2019 9:12 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1202 by JonF, posted 06-07-2019 9:54 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1204 of 1319 (854339)
06-07-2019 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1202 by JonF
06-07-2019 9:54 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
I think you are ascribing that comment to the wrong person. But I would love an explanation of what is wrong with my comment.

I'm pretty sure it was Dredge's post that left me speechless. Your response was spot on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1202 by JonF, posted 06-07-2019 9:54 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1227 of 1319 (854504)
06-09-2019 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1225 by Dredge
06-09-2019 5:23 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
If I asked you how to breed a sheep dog from wolves and you simply said "Mutations" I would have no idea about how to perform such a feat ... then I would conclude you know next to nothing about the subject. Face it, you have absolutely no idea how you would go about breeding non-winged insects to evolve into winged insects.

Breeding is a form of selection and selection is not evolution. Your 'breeding' scenario for accomplishing evolution is nonsense. You need to decide what your point is.

Your claim to possessing macroevolutionary knowledge appears be delusionary and bogus.

Actually, your understanding of evolution is delusional and bogus.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1225 by Dredge, posted 06-09-2019 5:23 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1244 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 2:22 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1239 of 1319 (854533)
06-09-2019 7:34 PM


This thread is destabilizing ... time to stick a fork in it.
Replies to this message:
 Message 1240 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2019 8:52 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1241 of 1319 (854536)
06-09-2019 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1240 by Theodoric
06-09-2019 8:52 PM


The time to stick a fork in it was the first time Dredge invoked the supernatural and turned it into a religious proselytizing thread.

Heh, heh ... if you suggested that the OP was bogus, I would tend to agree. Some of us have seen this from Dredge before, though outright trolling with the alien meme turned it into even more of a circus at an early point.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1240 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2019 8:52 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 1246 of 1319 (854785)
06-12-2019 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1244 by Dredge
06-12-2019 2:22 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
I can feel the pain and anguish of your confusion from here.

The only pain I'm aware of is from dying brain cells absorbing effluent emitted by anti-evolution posts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1244 by Dredge, posted 06-12-2019 2:22 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 1252 of 1319 (855692)
06-21-2019 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1251 by Dredge
06-20-2019 7:04 PM


That's all fine and dandy, but I fail to see how it demonstrates that accepting the Darwinian explanation is necessary to utilize knowledge of genetics in a practical sense. Are you saying a YEC biologist couldn't understand the genetics of extant organisms?

If the concept of a common ancestor is used by just one scientists to make sense of life on earth, then it is useful. Period.

I don't care that it is necessary or not, nor if YECs might understand genetics. This entire thread has been a specious argument based on one person's rather limited opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1251 by Dredge, posted 06-20-2019 7:04 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1254 by Dredge, posted 06-24-2019 10:37 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1264 of 1319 (856096)
06-26-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1254 by Dredge
06-24-2019 10:37 PM


Irrelevant to the OP

Well, considering that the OP is irrelevant to any meaningful purpose, I thought my comment to be appropriate. Sorry that it contradicts your opinion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1254 by Dredge, posted 06-24-2019 10:37 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1267 by Dredge, posted 06-30-2019 12:43 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4644
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 1304 of 1319 (857869)
07-12-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1303 by Dredge
07-12-2019 12:40 AM


Evolutionary theory predicts that the most ideal creature to test human drugs on will be our alleged “closest evolutionary relative” - chimps. But as it turns out, chimps actually don’t make very good test animals … so much for evolutionary theory. Did evolutionary theory predict that mice would prove useful for testing? Probably not.
"Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences" https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1027&context=acwp_lab


So, why do you insinuate the mice would be better than chimp-based research? The abstract to your linked article says nothing about mice.

I might also point out that the article was written by a member of the Anti-Vivisection Society. I don't suppose he would have an agenda, would you?

Furthermore, plain common sense would suggest that the best animal to test drugs on would most likely be an animal that is most like humans - ie, non-human primates. No evolutionary theory is needed to arrive at that conclusion; it’s a no-brainer.

But if one were making the argument for chimp-based research versus mouse-based research, the genetic similarity might be a useful tool and referencing the relatedness of humans to chimps to justify the additional costs would be a point of argument.

Besides, common sense is often recognized as not so common.

Your rant has dribbled off-topic. The thread is not about the practical usefulness of “godditit”.

I'm sure that dwise was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. I can see why you would want to avoid that point ...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:40 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1313 by Dredge, posted 07-17-2019 2:05 AM edge has responded
 Message 1318 by dwise1, posted 07-17-2019 8:16 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019