Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
662 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 659 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,821 Year: 21,857/19,786 Month: 420/1,834 Week: 420/315 Day: 16/82 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1274 of 1371 (856659)
07-02-2019 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1270 by Sarah Bellum
06-30-2019 3:15 PM


Do you realize that all you’ve done in your post is repeat yourself … almost word-for-word? Did you know that mindlessly repeating oneself may be symptomatic of a damaged cerebellum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1270 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-30-2019 3:15 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1275 by Taq, posted 07-02-2019 11:22 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1277 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-02-2019 5:22 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1278 of 1371 (856911)
07-04-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1273 by Taq
07-01-2019 12:12 PM


Are you referring to this: “Our analyses indicate that disease mutations show definite patterns when examined from an evolutionary perspective. Human replacement mutations resulting in disease are overabundant at amino acid positions most conserved throughout the long-term history of metazoans.?

If so, how do you get from “amino acid positions” to the fossil record?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1273 by Taq, posted 07-01-2019 12:12 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1333 by Taq, posted 07-23-2019 6:44 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1279 of 1371 (857020)
07-04-2019 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1275 by Taq
07-02-2019 11:22 AM


Do you realize that you can't address the examples of evolution being used in practical applications?

Do you realize that I didn’t ask you for “examples of evolution being used in practical applications”? I asked you for an example of how the Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth has proven practically useful in applied science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1275 by Taq, posted 07-02-2019 11:22 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1280 of 1371 (857021)
07-04-2019 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1277 by Sarah Bellum
07-02-2019 5:22 PM


I've given you answers to your question. You seemed doubtful, so I expanded on those answers.
Is there something you're still not clear about?

It’s clear that you are confused about what I asked for … which was not practical uses for “evolution” in applied science. I know there are practical uses for "evolution" in applied science.
I asked for an example of how the Darwinian explanation of the history of life has proven practically useful in applied science. For example, if you can think of any practical use of medical science that requires the “information” that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that would be a start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1277 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-02-2019 5:22 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1281 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2019 6:24 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1282 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2019 6:43 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1283 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 9:54 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1284 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:07 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1286 of 1371 (857134)
07-05-2019 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1281 by Pressie
07-05-2019 6:24 AM


You don't understand the Darwinian theories of common descent and descent with modification?

If not, try neo-Darwinian theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1281 by Pressie, posted 07-05-2019 6:24 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1295 by Pressie, posted 07-09-2019 8:11 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1292 of 1371 (857353)
07-08-2019 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1282 by Tangle
07-05-2019 6:43 AM


Tangle writes:

AIDS vaccine development using monkeys - our closest genetic relative.


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1282 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2019 6:43 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1294 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2019 9:14 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1293 of 1371 (857354)
07-08-2019 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1287 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2019 10:53 PM


Re: Is this study to your point (few useful "success" stories?) Dredge?
LamarkNewAge writes:

Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human
Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences
Jarrod Bailey
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), Boston, USA and British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection (BUAV), London, UK

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 suppose you feel that all research would happen regardless of understanding of the past.
So even successful research won't mean a whole lot, to you, correct?

I’m not aware of any “successful research” has produced a practical use for “an understanding of the (evolutionary distant) past”.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1287 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:53 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1297 of 1371 (857649)
07-10-2019 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1283 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2019 9:54 AM


Sarah Bellum writes:

Perhaps the fact that we study primates to learn about living creatures, anatomy, the immune system and so forth requires the knowledge of the genetic link?


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.

After all, if we not related we must treat the data from primate studies differently than we do

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”.

In any case, it's all part of a whole, so trying to work with only some of the science while dismissing fundamental principles would lead to the same sort of problems

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.

would lead to the same sort of problems as, for example, trying to use modern chemistry while still holding in your mind the idea that there are only four elements.

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.

It's still knowledge, even so.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 9:54 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1300 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 11:38 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1298 of 1371 (857650)
07-10-2019 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1284 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2019 10:07 PM


Re: "Darwinian" means what?
LamarkNewAge writes:

"Darwinian"?
Survival of the fittest?
Genetic isolation? (the "genetic" part might be neo-Darwinian)
Or the common ancestry part?


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.

Humans of common ancestry share common diseases.
Ancestry tells us a lot about who gets what disease.

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.

There does seem to be a link between macro-evolutionary events and diseases.

Like what? Name just one of these "macro-evolutionary events" that has provided a practical use in fighting disease.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:07 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1299 of 1371 (857651)
07-10-2019 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1285 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2019 10:19 PM


Re: I might have found a site to help in this discussion
LarmarkNewAge writes:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/...ibrary/news/101101_malaria


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1285 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:19 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 11:39 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1306 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:49 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1302 of 1371 (857847)
07-12-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1294 by Tangle
07-08-2019 9:14 AM


Tangle writes:

Well, that's just more denial, twisting and wriggling


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 the answer was inoculation testing using monkeys which is possible because we share a close common ancestor.

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.

without the knowledge we have of common descent he'd have to try every living organism to find something that worked.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2019 9:14 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1305 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:45 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1303 of 1371 (857849)
07-12-2019 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1296 by dwise1
07-09-2019 5:02 PM


dwise1 writes:

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.


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

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.

Worse yet, being a creationist he would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist.

What baloney.

”being a creationist he would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist”

“ 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. ”


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.

That is just one reason what "goddidit" is so utterly useless … That's the other two deleterious effects of "goddidit"...

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1296 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2019 5:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:43 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1307 of 1371 (858019)
07-15-2019 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1300 by Sarah Bellum
07-10-2019 11:38 AM


Sarah Bellum writes:

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.


You’re talking about the “evolution” within an extant species - which doesn’t require even knowledge of the history of life on earth, let alone the neo-Darwinian explanation of that history.

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.

… none of which require so much as knowledge of the history of life on earth, , let alone the neo-Darwinian explanation of that history. Btw, you’re doing it again - repeating yourself - examples of practical uses for known biological mechanisms is not what I asked for.

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.

Whatever … I’m not interested in debating your pointless analogies. Try giving me facts instead, such as practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

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).

You missed my point - which was that, as an atheist, you have no choice but to believe that biological evolution was responsible for the history of life on earth.

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.

Fossil indicated that some kind of “evolution” has occurred, but they don’t tell us HOW that “evolution” occurred. So fossils are not a test for the neo-Darwinan theory of evolution - there is no way to test (as in, confirm) what mechanism was responsible for the “evolutionary” history of life on earth.

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.

Silly “ straw man” argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1300 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 11:38 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by edge, posted 07-15-2019 10:02 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1309 by ringo, posted 07-15-2019 11:53 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1310 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2019 12:45 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 1317 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-17-2019 5:38 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1338 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-30-2019 8:25 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1312 of 1371 (858122)
07-17-2019 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1305 by edge
07-12-2019 9:45 AM


edge writes:


As previously shown, you have no need for explanations


Applied science has no need for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth. If it does, it hasn’t appeared in this thread. All I’ve seen so far is a bunch of evolutionist who are having trouble accepting that their Darwinist interpretation of the history of life on earth is nothing more than a useless story.

nor do you have any

So what? Will the world stop turning if no one offers a scientific explanation for what was responsible for the history of life on earth?

nor do you care

I don't care about scientific theories that can ever be tested and could be dead wrong.

However, some people find explanations useful

Yep, the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth is “useful” as a creation story in atheist folklore. But as science, it’s as irrelevant as stories about parallel universes.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:45 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1314 by edge, posted 07-17-2019 9:33 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1313 of 1371 (858123)
07-17-2019 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1304 by edge
07-12-2019 9:43 AM


edge writes:

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


Huh?

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?

Which part of the paper is incorrect?

And speaking of “an agenda”, no wonder you want to discredit the author - you’re disappointed that chimps don’t make very good test animals because that fact doesn’t support your cherished belief in common ancestry. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

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 ...

Not at all - I can’t think of any practical scientific use for my creationist interpretation of the history of life on earth either. So the Darwinist interpretation of that history is as useless and irrelevant to applied science as my (or any) creationist interpretation.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1304 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:43 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1315 by edge, posted 07-17-2019 9:50 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1320 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2019 1:39 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019