|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Whatever that means and which has nothing to do with a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian explanation of the history of life on earth.
It tells us who we are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
You’re showing your true colours now - you know full well that you aren’t speaking the truth. he is a CRP (crazy religious person) who has recurrent voices and visions playing in his head. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Louis Morelli writes:
It isn’t. Applied biology has no use at all for the concept of UCA or even for the information that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
How is UCA relevant to protein folding? Now, if you are a theoretical deist, you will say Matrix/DNA is wrong, if you are a theoretical atheist you will say it is wrong. I think that rationally, any believe that separates Universal Evolution into two blocks (cosmological and Biological evolution) without a rational evolutionary link between them is magical thought, so, deism and atheism. I am here advocating a third world view, an agnostic one. I think it is my right to do it also.
I agree that you have every right to express your very entertaining and fantastic ideas. Have you ever thought about writing science-fiction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Whatever you still haven’t yet given me a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth. Applied science (engineering essentially) is making use of knowledge to make practical things, like bridges and roads, but also medicines and foods. You've been told this already.Knowing who we are means not wasting a lot of time and bandwidth on fantasies but spending that time on actual works of value. It also means doing those things instead of waiting for magic fantasies to fix it. Btw, this is getting off-topic, but what does the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth tell us about who we are? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I didn't miss it. All you gave me was some irrelevant rhetoric, not a practical use. Try again.
You missed it. Maybe you should try to figure that one out. It's not rocket science.
God could have created life via a process of Darwinian evolution. What does that tell us about "who we are"? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
An example, please.
The fossil record is used to construct phylogenies which are then used to detect mutations involved in disease.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I asked you for an example of this (#1336) but, unsurprisingly, none was provided. It looks suspiciously like your claim is a result of some sort of delusion. The fossil record is used to construct phylogenies which are then used to detect mutations involved in disease.This is a direct application of evolution in applied science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Be specific - give me a specific example of how the neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth has provided a practical use in applied science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
otherwise known as science-fiction and superstition.
But Mother Nature (what a woman!) could and did do all the above. She created life from star dust. She created evolution to animate the planet with it. And she created Eleanor Roosevelt with her well known tendency to fly.With nothing but natural processes - such a useful Mother Nature. With all the majik in the universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
I don’t recall agreeing that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
You even agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs Is your problem with the, "practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth" a dislike for the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs because you can't make a quick buck off the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs?
Have you been drinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
For one thing, it means Dobzhansky's claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is deluded nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Edited out.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Fine, but that’s not what I asked for. What you need to do is explain how common ancestry has proven useful in a practical application. For example, demonstrate how accepting the information that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is necessary for any practical application of biology. Your post doesn’t do that. It didn’t work the first time you offered it and surprise, surprise it didn’t work this time either. You appear to be a slow learner.
Overall, our results demonstrate the usefulness of evolutionary analyses for understanding patterns of human disease mutations as with our analysis of the frequencies of different amino acid changes, we only analyzed amino acid changes among species that could have been the result of a single nucleotide mutation and scored each type of amino acid change seen at a site once to account for the residue’s common ancestry within a phylogenetic lineage.
This is not a practical use - it is merely theorising about common ancestry - completely useless speculation, in other words. Evidently, you don’t know the difference between a useless theory and a practical use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
The bad news is, you have descended into a cesspit of strawmanism, extreme silliness and embarrassing fatuity. Please be advised that this display does nothing for your credibility as someone with intelligence. Do you contend that the scientific field of evolution only involves UCA? Are there no other practical links between evolution and biology?As an example, is it your contention that mutation has no effect on biology? Is it your contention that mutation in bacteria and viruses can never have an effect on your personal biology function? The good news is, you have at least conceded that your Darwinist bedtime story is scientifically irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
The bad news is, a public forum is not the best place to find oneself indulging in meaningless babble.
I guess you can't answer the questions because you haven't any reasons or because you don't understand the questions. Fatuity indeed.The bad news is this is an open public forum and everyone can see you trying to avoid giving an account of your UCA foolishness. How does UCA lacking what you would define as practical use in applied science sever the well established connection between evolution and biology?
This question if off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science?
Do you contend that the scientific field of evolution only involves UCA? Are there no other practical links between evolution and biology?
These questions are off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science?
is it your contention that mutation has no effect on biology?
1. Mutation is a demonstrable principle of biology. So in effect you’re asking me if certain principle of biology has an effect on biology. 2. This question is off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science?
Is it your contention that mutation in bacteria and viruses can never have an effect on your personal biology function?
This question is off-topic. The question is, how has the information that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of Darwinian common descent provided a practical use in applied science?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024