|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: What part of leave them alone for a few million years do you not understand? That is a breeding program that has already worked for every organism on this planet today That’s like saying, “This is how you breed sausage dogs from wolves: You just leave wolves alone to for a few thousand years and eventually they will evolve into sausage dogs.” In other words, you’re clueless as to how you would go about breeding synapsids to evolve into mammals - the best you can come with is, “Evolution done it” - which proves you really know nothing about “how macroevolution occurs.”
It may tell *you* nothing
Ya got that right! It’s tells me nothing because you know nothing about how macroevolution would actually work in a practical sense to produce the fossil record - all you’ve got is blind faith in meaningless theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
I take your point, but the thread ran off-topic about a thousand posts ago.
This diversion is off topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
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. Your claim to possessing macroevolutionary knowledge appears be delusionary and bogus. Mutations. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Ah, I see you've changed your tune - you've gone from claiming to "know how macroevolution occurs" to "I know what macroevolution is". I know what macroevolution is Moving the goalposts isn't going to help you - if you really did "know how macroevolution occurs", you would know how to breed a winged insect from a non-winged insect. But you haven't got a clue about how to perform such a feat, because you only know how MICROevolution (genetic variations within a extant population) occurs. Anyhow, if you want to be further humiliated re this subject, go to the new thread in "Biological Evolution": EvC Forum: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I can feel the pain and anguish of your confusion from here. Perhaps it will assist you to go to the new thread on this matter: EvC Forum: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
In retrospect, I should have asked for practical uses in applied science for the Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) theory/explanation for the history of life on earth (as opposed to the theory of common descent). So this thread is pointless. (Someone (Stile, I think) implied that there might be such uses in "medicine" but I (my research team is on holidays at the moment) lost track of this part of the thread.) P.S. Everyone who knows me says my whole life has been pointless from the very beginning, so I guess it's hardly surprising that I came up with what you perceive to be a "pointless" thread. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
Merci beaucoup. Your kind words are appreciated. Dredges (the machines) are truly lovely things.
Well, you have a nice avatar. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Irrelevant to the OP
If the concept of a common ancestor is used by just one scientists to make sense of life on earth, then it is useful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
In other words, you can't provide a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian explanation for the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
The practical use you supplied involves information relating to extant organisms - in other words, a biologist could believe the world is a hundred years old and still gain and use that information. So the "information" that life on earth is the result of Darwinian evolution is completely irrelevant to gaining and using the genetic information you mentioned.
I already supplied that practical use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
. all this information would have be gained and these uses would have been developed if everyone believed life on earth was 100 years old - which means the Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth is completely irrelevant to them.
The idea of a universal common ancestor is a concept in a branch of science with enormous practical applications. If you look it up, you'll find applications to patterns of disease mutation, relative virulence of parasites, handling drug or pesticide resistance, selective breeding ("artificial" selection finds knowledge of "natural" selection useful!), evaluation of possible hazards from genetically modified crops, preservation of endangered species, understanding of gene function (if you know the pattern of descent it helps in learning about genes with still-unknown function), development of biological strains to decompose hazardous materials, genetic algorithms . . . Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
I accept your apology. Never contradict me again.
I thought my comment to be appropriate. Sorry that it contradicts your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I fear you are talking complete nonsense, probably due to suffering a serious delusion. Please provide a practical use in medical science or in any form of applied biology for the fossil record. It involves extinct fossil species as well since they supply the evidence for phylogeneis that have practical uses.
Then, and more to the point, please provide a practical use in medical science or in any form of applied biology for the neo-Darwinian explanation for the fossil record. Good luck with that. Nurse to Doctor Taq: “Doctor Taq, the patient has AIDS. What do you suggest as the first course of action?”Doctor Taq to Nurse: “Quick! Show me the fossil record!”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Please make your point with relevant facts and refrain from using evasive and meaningless analogies. (Did you know that mindlessly babbling-on is symptomatic of a damaged cerebellum?) That's like saying we'd get the same use out of geology if we didn't believe plate tectonics, or the same use out of chemistry if we still believed there were only four elements!
Furthermore, if you can’t think of a practical use in applied biology for the neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth, just say “I can’t think of a practical use in applied biology for the neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth.”
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024