Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

There has not been much clarity.I have no idea if anything can possibly meet (what the standard is) his/her standards.I was attempting to figure out if any research on human diseases (based on animal studies on animals with a relatively "close" macro-evolutionary relationship) counts as evidence, since a claim can be made that "research can happen regardless of evolutionary views".I got very - quick, facile - dismissive answers from the thread originator.

Sorry, but your argument fails. What is actually useful in this case is the FACT that human and monkey DNA are similar. Any EXPLANATION for why they are similar (ie, common descent) is irrelevant. In other words, the useful fact is not dependent on the explanation, which is actually useless. You are conflating a useful fact and a useless theory that attempts to explain that fact.Are you saying a creationist Muslim biologist, for example, couldn’t make use of these genetic similarities and use primates to test drugs on?

Thanks for this excellent post - it fails to demonstrate any practical use for the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, but it does demonstrate that the much-vaunted genetic similarities between humans and chimps are “superficial” and that the genetic “differences are striking, extensive and widespread.” Not a great advertisement for “common descent” is it? I’m not aware of any “successful research” has produced a practical use for “an understanding of the (evolutionary distant) past”.

Well, that's just more denial, twisting and wriggling, but I was answering the question you asked which was And the answer was inoculation testing using monkeys which is possible because we share a close common ancestor. No. But without the knowledge we have of common descent he'd have to try every living organism to find something that worked.

Does your idea of it involve neutral theory?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This leads us to an important point that I don't think has been addressed yet. As I pointed out in an old topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) (2007-Nov-27 to 2011-Jun-06, 396 messages), in which my OP concluded started with:

quote:

---

Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.

---

A very important thing in engineering (which is what Dredge is fixated on; ie, his "applied science", though I feel that it's more of an ID invention to generate more confusion) as well as in science (which too many engineers do no like; we could have a nice long talk about this one over some fava beans and a nice Chianti) is to have an understanding of how things work in general in order to be able to ask meaningful questions that will inspire new solutions and discoveries. Those would be questions like, "Huh, I wonder why that happened?" or "I wonder if that will make this work?" or the infamous last thing said before the total destruction of the universe "I wonder what will happen if I do this."Without that understanding of how things work, of what to expect, you won't be able to recognize when something unexpected happens and so will miss out on new discoveries. That even applies when dealing with known phenomena, where you need to know how the device is supposed to work so that you can notice the ways in which it's not working correctly as well as to understand how the components of the device work in order to realize how that could be causing the problem.One example was an electronic device that worked when the case was closed, but then the output had a lot of noise on the output signal when the case was open. Any energy entering a semiconductor will increase current. Knowing that, the engineer also noticed that the power supply's rectifier diodes were encased in glass, so when you opened the case then the room's ambient light would hit the semiconductors and induce noise. The solution was to replace those diodes with ones encased in an opaque material. Without that knowledge of how semiconductors work, the engineer would probably still be trying to fix the problem or have gotten fired for incompetence (given how long ago our EE or tech school class was told about that, a third outcome would have been that that engineer finally retired after a lifelong career of trying to fix that problem).Another example is what happened with one of our products a few jobs back. We had monitoring equipment that communicated with a base station via radio. They kept having interference problems, such that the entire box would just go crazy, but as soon as we opened the box the problem would go away so we couldn't troubleshoot it. Finally our EE, knowing how RF and electronics work, realized that the antenna connector had to be leaking RF energy back into the box where it would bounce around injecting RFI in all the circuits. That fixed the problem, but it took knowledge of how things work.The same idea applied in my first programming class, FORTRAN, after I switched from foreign languages to computer science. I had an understanding of how languages work and how to learn and use them, so I applied that knowledge to programming languages. When my program didn't work as expected, I would read it for content to see what I was actually telling the computer to do (which is not always what you want it to do) and then make corrections so that I was telling the computer to actually do what I wanted it to do. Most of the other students would panic and try random changes which would almost never fix the problem.That is similar to Dredge's example of a "creationist Muslim biologist". Without the realization and understanding of why he should expect those genetic similarities and where, he would either not realize to look for them nor where. Worse yet, being a creationist he would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist.First, Dredge's inclusion of the biologist's religion was completely irrelevant and contributes absolutely nothing. Neither the natural universe nor science (the study of the natural universe) could care less which stinkin' god you believe in -- they're going to function exactly the same regardless of your beliefs. You're going to get the same results whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Pastafarian, or atheist. That is just one reason what "goddidit" is so utterly useless: including a god adds absolutely nothing and leaving the gods out detracts absolutely nothing. The same as the next time you microwave a frozen dinner; you're going to get the exact same meal regardless of any stinkin' gods you might be inclined to include or to leave out.But, including that he's also a creationist (yes, Virginia, there are Islamic creationists) is important. As a creationist, he would not only not accept the idea of common descent, but he would also be motivated to deny it. That denial could even be to the point of denying that such patterns of genetic differences even exist, or just merely that it's too uninteresting and deserves no further study. We saw precisely that behavior in Faith within the past month when she was confronted with the patterns of genetic differences that match the independent phylogenetic trees near perfectly. As I recall, at first she tried to deny that those patterns even exist and then shifted to a position of "so what?" and arbitrarily dismissed them as unimportant and uninteresting and unworthy of any study.That's the other two deleterious effects of "goddidit". On the one hand, it misleads you into thinking that you have found an answer to the question or else that any question exists, so you stop investigating. On the other hand, there develops the dangerous attitude that by continuing to investigate you are denying God and even acting in direct opposition to Her. The wages of heresy can be extremely unpleasant *.And, of course, at the end of the day, a creationist biologist responsible for coming up with an effective test would be stuck with being unable to approach the problem except in the manner that you describe: trial and effect, making random choices and changes in the vague hope of something falling into place ex nihilo. Like my fellow FORTRAN students.And in case the point has been lost (especially on the self-professed nearly brain dead troll), the value and practical use for common ancestors is because by understanding how the real world works we can ask useful questions and arrive at useful solutions. Without that knowledge, we would just be stumbling in the dark.-----------------------------------------------* Paula Poundstone (from memory):
"Yes, it is true that the wages of sin are death. But after all the withholding for taxes and the like, all you're left with is feeling very tired."

Or perhaps not. On another site, I once had a senior genetics researcher (from the Broad Institute) try and tell that the alleged fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor had proven practically useful in his research (into improving vaccines). But when I pressed him to explain how, it turns out that what he meant was, common ancestry worked in theory; he then admitted that that theory had not provided any practical use or benefit. Any data from primate studies that has proven practically useful will remain practically useful whether or not scientists believe humans and primates share a common ancestor. And I suspect that much of what you refer to as “data” is not actually real data, but evolutionary theory that is assumed to be factual and thus accepted as “data”. That’s your assumption, which unfortunately has no basis in fact. I come across this false assumption all the time with evolutionists, especially the trained biologist types. They are brainwashed to believe Dobzhansky’s Delusion that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, but it doesn’t occur to them that there is not a solitary practical use in all of applied science for the Darwinian version of the history of life on earth. That’s a nonsense analogy, which is a product of the false assumption I mentioned above.
A chemist, for example, needs to have knowledge of, not four, but all the elements in order to be a competent chemist. What does a dentist, for example, need to know about the alleged evolution of teeth or humans in order to be a competent dentist? Nothing at all. What does a doctor, for example, need to know about the alleged evolution of humans in order to be a competent doctor? Nothing at all. What does a biologist, for example, need to know about the alleged evolution of life on earth in order to be a competent biologist? Nothing at all.As far as applied science is concerned, the Darwin version of the history of life on earth is completely useless information and amounts to nothing more than an historical curiosity. Another false assumption, based on your atheistic belief and the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The Darwinian explanation for the history of life is not “knowledge” - it is a theory that cannot ever be put to the test (despite what atheists what us to believe). Knowledge is facts; it is not untestable beliefs, as beliefs can be wrong.

The neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life amounts to (a) observed phenomena that cause variations within populations (ie, facts of microevolution that have proven practically useful) with (b) common descent (ie, unobservable speculation that is practically useless) throw in. So I’m talking about (b) common descent. There is nothing about the knowledge of inherited diseases in humans that even remotely depends on the "information" that humans and chimps share a common ancestor or the Darwinian version of the history of life on earth. The "information" that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, on the other hand, is completely useless and tells us absolutely nothing about who gets what disease. Like what? Name just one of these "macro-evolutionary events" that has provided a practical use in fighting disease.

All you’ve given me here is some useless evolutionary talk about what might have happened “six million years ago”. How does such speculation amount to a practical use? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Most likely, a dentist doesn't refer to Darwin's work in between taking X-rays and pulling wisdom teeth, though the idea of evolution might be interesting to a dentist wondering why more people are born with fewer wisdom teeth now than in the past.But then, a dentist's work isn't dealing with 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 or similar areas of science and technology.Your discussion of chemistry doesn't make any sense. Yes, a chemist could work with the Periodic Table and at the same time try to imagine that those symbols didn't really represent "elements" but merely compounds with various properties. Mercury, for instance, the chemist (alchemist?) might think of as a combination of water and fire, with a little earth in it to give it weight. But a chemist thinking that way would be no different from people working on the tasks described in the previous paragraph trying to hold in their minds the notion that living organisms didn't really evolve.As for "atheistic beliefs", remember that plenty of religious believers have no problem with the history of life on Earth being one of evolution (variation and natural selection).To me, it seems more likely that those who believe in Creationism have their reason clouded by their religious beliefs than that those who study science have their reason clouded by their lack of religious beliefs. Especially since, as I mentioned, many don't lack such beliefs.Finally, when you say, "The Darwinian explanation for the history of life is not 'knowledge' - it is a theory that cannot ever be put to the test" you say something untrue. For example, the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs can be put to the test. You may not be able to travel back in time to view the generational change, but you can find Archaeopteryx.If you claim that knowledge about the past isn't knowledge, then you might have an uncomfortable time talking with, for example, archaeologists digging around Jerusalem or Jericho or the Dead Sea.

Would you at least be willing to concede that the following argument has no validity?"Proposition X has no practical use so therefore Proposition X is false."

What??? Your mistake is one of simple logic - it’s not an EXPLANATION for the genetic similarities that makes them practically useful, but the genetic similarities themselves. And your answer was wrong. It doesn’t matter WHY monkey and human DNA are similar; all that matters is that they ARE similar. The “WHY” (in this case, humans and monkey share a common ancestor) is completely irrelevant to utility. If everyone were YECs and believed the world was created 6000 years ago, the same genetics similarities between monkeys and humans would still exist, still be known and still be just as useful. 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.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.

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" Error=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1027&context=acwp_labFurthermore, 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. What baloney. These two statements amount to a contradiction. If a Christian creationist “would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist”, then so would a Muslim or Jewish creationist and possibly creationists from other religions. Your rant has dribbled off-topic. The thread is not about the practical usefulness of “godditit”.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

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? 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. 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 ...

As previously shown, you have no need for explanations nor do you have any, nor do you care. However, some people find explanations useful.