Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,046 Year: 19,082/19,786 Month: 1,502/1,705 Week: 308/446 Day: 47/59 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 67 of 1362 (843970)
11-23-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dredge
11-20-2018 8:07 AM


Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before?

I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago, ...

I'm sure you have.

... but can't find any.

I'm shocked.

It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.

It would.

You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post.

First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse.

Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness. You are going to ignore anything we post, right?

Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences.

No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dredge, posted 11-20-2018 8:07 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 03-08-2019 12:32 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 1362 (843971)
11-23-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
11-21-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Name one.
... the known fact that Species or Kinds do have built in ability to vary but only within the Kind.

So, Faith, tell us about the what species represented giraffe kind in Cambrian times, or even in the Jurassic? After all, modern giraffes must have adapted from a precursor giraffe, yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 12:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 11-23-2018 4:12 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 103 of 1362 (849428)
03-09-2019 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dredge
03-08-2019 12:32 AM


1. Wrong. Theoretical science can prove invaluable.

So, something value may be of no use?

2. Straw man.

Okay, then, what is your point?

Er, no - I can't find "my personal criteria" in the OP. The OP actually asks for usefulness according to applied science.

Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes?

Again, I don't see the reason for you to make this point.

1. Irrelevant to the post.

2. I am not a YEC and I have never mentioned ID.

3. YEC/ID are religious beliefs - you want me to provide practical scientific applications for religious beliefs?


Once again, in this case, I see no reason for you to make the point in the OP. You are welcome to your opinion but it is without effect.

Let me guess ... here you were thinking that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of your cherished belief in UCA, ...

Then you guess wrongly. I am not a biologist and that is not my first impression of the argument.

To compound that, it is not MY belief, nor do I cherish it.

Your insinuations tell me that you have a motive for your OP. Why not just come out and say it?

... but it seems that nothing in all of applied science depends on your UCA belief system - and you find this hard to accept?

What is there to accept? Your statement is so watered down that anyone could agree with it.

It is your opinion that common ancestry has no direct practical application in "applied science".

So what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 03-08-2019 12:32 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:29 AM edge has responded
 Message 112 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:40 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 120 of 1362 (849531)
03-13-2019 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:40 AM


My comment was a play on Theodore Dobzhansky's line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has become a kind of mantra in biological science and is the title of his famous essay.

Then you are not talking about me. I have no such mantra.

Upon reading said essay, one realizes that what Dobzhansky meant by "evolution" was the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record, which of course includes the concept of UCA.

And?

But Dobzhansky was deluded and wrong, for there is nothing in all of applied biology (ie, the only form of biology that matters) that depends on the concept/theory/conclusion of UCA or even human evolution.

Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:40 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:31 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 121 of 1362 (849532)
03-13-2019 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:29 AM


ommon descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

Then what is your point? Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'. Maybe a theory should have an application in 'science'. AFAICS, you are just trying to create a false predicament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dredge, posted 03-14-2019 11:52 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 135 of 1362 (849601)
03-15-2019 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dredge
03-15-2019 12:31 AM


You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

Try telling biologist who doesn't work in applied biology...

You are the one who wanted to confine the discussion to 'applied biology' but now you want to extend it to be the same as all of biology including theoretical biology. Why not just say to 'all of science and engineering' and be done with it.

Again, what is your actual point. Saying that a concept is useless in applied science is about as insipid as you can get.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:31 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:35 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 136 of 1362 (849603)
03-15-2019 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dredge
03-14-2019 11:52 PM


I don't know - certainly not me.

So, you really don't have a point other than saying the equivalent of 'grass is green'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dredge, posted 03-14-2019 11:52 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 158 of 1362 (849661)
03-17-2019 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dredge
03-17-2019 1:35 AM


A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.

Okay, so we can just do away with basic biological science. Got it...

What?

What?

What?

Thank you for confirming that you have no real point.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:35 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:50 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 159 of 1362 (849662)
03-17-2019 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dredge
03-17-2019 2:12 AM


Re: Name one.
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to....

Interesting. Then who wrote this:

A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.

... if not you?

You must be confusing me with someone else.

No doubt someone is hacking your account, yes? You should report it to the management.

My "rules" (whatever that means) would not detract from the efficacy of the biological sciences and would in fact improve it, as no biologist would waste time on useless stories about ancient history, thinking such yarns are scientifically essential to his work.

I'm sure that science would be pleased to take the recommendations of scientifically illiterate anti-science laymen. We'll get to work on that tomorrow.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 2:12 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:52 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 160 of 1362 (849663)
03-17-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by AZPaul3
03-17-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Name one.
The point here Drudge, is that your claim is not worth debating. You are a troll ignorant of the science and the particulars of the issues. Your only purpose here is to insult evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik.

The argument here is an intellectually vacant exercise unless one just wants to stir the pot. Suggesting that a theory does not do something it was never intended to do is just a form of trolling, not to be taken seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AZPaul3, posted 03-17-2019 9:06 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:55 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 161 of 1362 (849664)
03-17-2019 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Tangle
03-17-2019 4:00 AM


And do also you accept the theory of evolution that explains those fossils?

This question goes straight to the heart of the matter. I think I know how Dredge will answer, but will wait and see...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2019 4:00 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 198 of 1362 (849769)
03-20-2019 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dredge
03-20-2019 1:50 AM


1. Straw man.

Just following your line of reasoning.

2. When a theoretical biologist comes up with something important to say (as opposed to useless pseudo-scientific stories), wake me up.

Important to you? You jest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:50 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 199 of 1362 (849770)
03-20-2019 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dredge
03-20-2019 1:52 AM


Re: Name one.
What?

That was a question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 200 of 1362 (849771)
03-20-2019 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dredge
03-20-2019 1:55 AM


Re: Name one.
I'm simply asking if anyone can give me an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. It looks like you've got nothing to offer.

So, I have nothing to offer regarding your pointless question. Sue me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:55 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dredge, posted 03-23-2019 3:15 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 201 of 1362 (849772)
03-20-2019 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dredge
03-20-2019 1:20 AM


The "theory of evolution that explains those fossils"?

The fossil record, yes.

There is no such thing as science is incapable of explaining the fossil record.

According to whom?

And if you are talking about explaining the fossil record to you ... well, that would be hopeless in any case.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dredge, posted 03-20-2019 1:20 AM 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