Because you can't. I'm right.

Not answering a question doesn't make you right.

Is there a practical use to knowledge? Yes, it helps us understand things so we don't have to rely on mythology and made up fantasies.

If YOU don't find that practical, then tough bananas, because I do.

Now are you going to post another 50 posts on this nonsense? In which case you prove AZPaul's point in spades covered in molasses.

Enjoy

ps -- happy turkey day

Dredge writes: Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then.

Except the argument shifts to whether theoretical science has a practical use ...

Creationists don’t like new information that disrupts their fragile thinking.

Enjoy

It provides fodder for classroom discussion in Academia. What else would we teach? *Looks up something*... What is Applied Science? *scratches head*...

Engineering is applied science, probably the most obvious example of it. It takes knowledge gained by science and applies it to practical applications, from bridges to sewage systems.

Atomic bombs and GMO crops are also applied science.

Anything we learn through science that is them used for some purpose would be applied science. This includes DNA matching used in forensics or ancestry studies. This DNA sequencing has been used to develop a genetic 'tree of life' - identifying common ancestors or their most probable common breeding ancestral populations.

This leads to the concept of the universal common ancestor, where all mammals (for instance) are related via one common universal ancestral population. This does not preclude other proto-mammal organisms that died out (extinction) before contributing to the surviving gene pool of mammalia.

The same can be done for all other taxonomic branches, and they too can be related via a common ancestor, reptilians and mammalia for instance. Ultimately this leads to the concept of a (last) universal common ancestor breeding population, the (L)UCA of this thread.

This shows that (L)UCA is a conclusion from the evidence rather than a theory. This is like concluding that the sky appears to be blue because the atmosphere absorbs and then re-emits light in the blue spectrum. The scientific knowledge leads to this conclusion.

As described in the OP:

Dredge writes: (Message 1): 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, but can't find any. It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.

This is like asking for a practical application to the scientific knowledge that the sky appears to be blue.

The question that rises is why this should be necessary for the conclusion to be valid. Especially when the conclusion is reinforced by different methods arriving at a common conclusion.

You could say that (L)UCA is a practical application of the scientific knowledge of common ancestry via evolution and the occurrence of divergent speciation (which is a process that has been observed, and thus a fact known to occur):

The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

We apply the scientific knowledge to the DNA and fossil evidence regarding divergent speciation in order to explain the pattern found, and the end result is a (L)UCA).

Enjoy

* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.

And you are wrong --- by definition of the terms as used in the science of evolution by the scientists doing the work.

(1) A species is defined as a population of organisms capable of interbreeding, while a genera is defined as a group of species that do not interbreed, one species population with another. These species are related by having a common parent population.

(2) Evolution only occurs within a breeding population -- a species, or a part (subset) of a species that may be isolated from the rest of the species population/s.

This is how science defines the terms, and your misuse of the terms is wrong and only demonstrates ignorance and unwillingness to learn the topic you think you are discussing.

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.

Again, this is how the terms are used in the science of evolution by the scientists doing the work.

If you want to discuss any field of science, you need to learn the definitions of the terminology as used in the field and then use them correctly.

Enjoy

This DNA "tree of life" sounds like it might involve Darwin's "tree of life" and his theory of evolution - but it doesn't; in fact, no knowledge of the theory of evoluiton is needed in order to trace and construct a useful phylogentic tree of DNA common ancestry.

And again you have it backwards: the DNA information is data, fact, and the fact is that the pattern derived from it is consistent with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution means that it validates the theory. This is a test of the theory, and it passed: there is no reason for this DNA pattern to show up unless the theory is valid.

The tree of life from the DNA information also happens to match the one derived from morphological analysis of fossils, again something that should happen if the Theory of Evolution is valid. This too is a test of the theory, and it passed: there is no reason for this matching pattern to show up unless the theory is valid.

Such "trees" are confined to the level of genus ...

What constrains this from happening beyond the level of genera: please layout the constraints in detail and show evidence for your assertion ...

and tell me if are you using your false definition of "genus" (which is actually species by scientific technical definition) or the actual scientific technical definition for genera?

... and are really not much different to a family tree that humans use to trace their ancestors. Believe it or not, there are many such family trees of life recorded in the Bible and none of the authors knew about the theory of evolution!

Family genealogy is just a small portion of the tree of life, all within one particular species, and developing small sections like this does not refute or even begin to challenge the rest of the tree of life construction. In fact it reinforces it by demonstrating the process is valid at small levels, so again this validates the tree of life process for all species. To challenge the theory you need to provide an example where the process does not result in the predicted pattern of nested hierarchies.

There is no reason why a YEC biologist (ie, someone who denies the theory of evolution and the concept LUCA) could not trace and contruct a DNA 'tree of life'.

Indeed he could, because that is what the evidence (data, fact, observation) shows. What he would have, however is a test of two different concepts:

1. Descent from "original kinds" from created kinds, the impact of a purported flood on population dynamics, and the subsequent descent of surviving kinds from the purported ark passengers. IE:
   
   1. The trees of life for each "original kind" all converging to begin at the same point in time, both for the bottleneck event caused by the flood, and for the original time of creation.
      
   2. This is falsified if no well defined beginning points are found.
2. Descent from early original life formed on an early earth, with the pattern of nested hierarchies extending as far back in time as the evidence (data, fact, observation) allows, IE:
   
   1. The tree of life based on the evidence unconstrained by preconceptions, where the only well defined beginning point is at a early earth time from a common breeding population.
      
   2. This is falsified if a well defined beginning point is found for one or more branches of life that are not related by common ancestry to other branches.

This has been done by some YEC (pseudo)"scientists" ... where they can only get result (1) by ignoring evidence of earlier common ancestry, the age of the earth, and the lack of evidence for a flood with the subsequent bottleneck effect occurring simultaneously on all branches of life. This does not occur with an unbiased evaluation of all the evidence, as done by secular scientists with no religious preconceptions .

IE concept (1) is falsified and concept (2) is validated by the evidence when all the evidence is used.

This leads to the concept of universal common ancestor Wow, that's quite a leap of faith ... from "variations within a genus" to "all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor"!

Nope, it is just following the concept of descent from common ancestor breeding populations to the logical conclusion:

If (D) and (E) are related via common ancestor (C), and (H) and (I) are related by common ancestor (G) and (F) is related to (C) by common ancestor (B), it is logical that there exists a population (A) that is a common ancestor to (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) and (I). If evidence of population (A) exists at the proper place in the spacial-temporal matrix, then this conclusion is validated as tentatively true because this is the best known explanation for the evidence (until a better explanation is provided).

1. It is like asking if there are any practical uses for the theory of evolution - the answer appears to be "NO". 2. ... except the theory of evolution isn't "knowledge". I dare say no theory qualifies as knowledge. You could, but that would be nonsense, as there's nothing remotely "practical" about a mere idea.

These are just your opinions, having ignored the evidence given for the use of knowledge, and as such they are eminently ignore-able until you provide actual objective empirical evidence of a wisp of validity.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

How did birds evolve from dinosaurs, for example, ...

Birds ARE dinosaurs, the last remaining branch.

Enjoy

That depends on one's definition of ToE. What's yours?

Mine is simple:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

If a species is observed to change over generations (anagenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the expressed hereditary traits (genes, morphology, development), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread within the breeding population in following generations.

If a clade is observed to form (cladogenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) independent evolution (anagenesis) within each daughter population. We can also predict the formation of the clade will fall within a nested hierarchy pattern.

These predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

You will note that all evolution takes place at the species level within breeding populations:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

No mention of LUCA.

Enjoy

General references and further study resources

1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
   
2. U of Michigan on-line course material
   
3. Talk Origins Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You have clearly misinterpreted my terms "genus-genus evolution" and "evolution above the level of species".

Which is the result of your continued misuse of the scientific terminology which is there to be used by people talking about actual science evolution with clarity and understanding.

By "genus-genus evolution" I mean an interval of evolution that begins with a species within one genus and ends with a species within another genus.

You do realize, I hope, that taxonomic nomenclature is man-made and used to describe and discuss topics. For instance we have Pelycodus:

Where the species at the bottom (oldest fossils in the chart) is labeled Pelycodus ralstoni while the two species at the top are labeled Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. As you can see the (arbitrary man made) genera nomenclature changes from Pelycodus to Notharctus, even though the evolution occurs within the breeding populations of the various species at the time they exist, as shown by their depth levels.

By "evolution above the level of species" is perhaps a clumsy way of saying the same thing: evolution above a species evolving into another species within the same genus - ie, a species from one genus evolving into a species of a different genus - ie, genus-genus evolution.

Which is demonstrated by Pelycodus evolving by anagenesis through several species before the cladogenesis division into two independent species at the top.

This is why cladistics is generally preferred these days compared to traditional taxonomic classifications, it reduces confusion.

All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade:

Where Pelycodus ralstoni is the common ancestor population while Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are the descendant daughter populations.

... For example, a fish to an amphibian, ...

See Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition

... an ape to a human being, ...

Humans are apes.

... or a whale to a submarine.

LOL.

Enjoy

In other words, your post Message 267 - that I replied to in Message 283 - was a waste of your time and you recant everything said in it.

And here I thought you wanted answers on a related line of reasoning involving your ignorance/denial/misunderstanding of the science of evolution. My bad.

Rather, it is concerned with a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.

The practical use of all science is that it lessens the amount of time people spend (waste) on false or incomplete concepts (like "progressive creation") of how things work in the real world.

This has been said before, you have not refuted it, just denied it.

Enjoy

... The supernatural creation of a different genus (Notharctus from Pelycodus) is actually ...

... just a matter of nomenclature.

So the P. ralstoni clade ends at P. jarrovii?

Nope.

The P. ralstoni clade includes Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus ... and all of their descendants ... it's like a kind reproducing after it's kind, where all descendants are members of the original kind.

That's why I said "All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade" ... ALL the species descendant from Pelycodus ralstoni are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade.

Well, I'd better learn something about cladistics ...

Yes ... it is a simple concept ... and if you want to learn how to discuss science scientifically then learn the science and the terminology used in the science.

Enjoy

... It's interesting that there's no mention of LUCA in your definition.

That's because it is not necessary for evolution to be a valid explanation of the history of life. All that is necessary is that there is a pattern of descent of daughter species from parent species, resulting in the formation of nested hierarchies of these patterns that is observed in the fossil record and the DNA data. The logical conclusion is that there is a single ancestral parent population ... and that is also what the evidence from fossils and from DNA show ... but it is not necessary.

One of your reference links is "Berkeley U." Here is a quote from one of their articles: "The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, "Understanding Evolution". (emphasis mine)

And yet that is not part of their definition of the Theory of Evolution, it is part of their discussion, the Explanation of the theory. Under the Definition it says:

quote:

---

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

That doesn't mention LUCA either, just the pattern of descent of daughter species from parent species.

Note that "small-scale evolution" is micro-evolution and "large-scale evolution" is macro-evolution as those terms are used in evolution science.

Enjoy

but a UCA is not a necessary part of the theory Tell that to Berkeley University: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life. Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time ... The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, Understanding Evolution (emphasis mine).

Lying by quote-mine now?

quote:

---

(Berkeley University): An introduction to evolution

The definition

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

---

UCA is NOT a necessary part of the theory as noted in the definition section.

Quote-mining like this is a form of lying -- trying to make an article say what it doesn't say when read in full by conflating two separate paragraphs from different sections to make it look like one paragraph is misrepresentation. Intentionally misrepresenting facts is lying.

The explanation is not part of the definition. The definition makes no reference to LUCA, period, end stop.

The explanation tells us what the theory helps us to understand about the history of life. It tells us what the evidence shows -- the pattern of common ancestry from today back to the first evidence of life.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : color added

The P. ralstoni clade includes another genus? I wouldnt consider a different genus the same "kind" at all.

And curiously it doesn't matter one whit of ant frass what you think.

You are not a biologist. The evidence clearly shows that Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are descendant from Pelycodus ralstoni and that makes them part of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade.

So where does the P. ralstoni clade end?

It appears that they did not survive into the Oligocene:

quote:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strepsirrhini

Notharctids, which most closely resembled some of Madagascar's lemurs, come from Europe and North America. The European branch is often referred to as cercamoniines.[37] The North American branch thrived during the Eocene, but did not survive into the Oligocene.[38][39] Like the adapids, the European branch were also extinct by the end of the Eocene.[34]

---

I've got a better idea - science should dump its present terminology and adopt my mine. Here is my latest brilliant idea: The evolution that is practically useful is the stuff that can be directly observed and should be referred to as "empirical evolution", not "microevolution". This will differentiate it from useless theoretical evolution.

And curiously it still doesn't matter one whit of ant frass what you think.

You lose, it is not a "better idea" ... it avoids the science and it is just a self serving denial of the evidence that supports evolution. People without your religious bias and your preconceptions don't need your idea to understand biology to the full extent offered by evolution.

Enjoy

Tangle writes: Can you show what difference there is between 'progressive creation' and evolution please. Progressive creation or PC (which is not the same as theistic evolution, btw) actually has a lot in common with Darwinian evolution: - PC accepts that the history of life on earth is one of profound changes that could be loosely described as evolution. - it accepts the same sequence of organisms found in the fossil record as Darwinism does - it accepts that life on earth could be billions of years old. - PC also accepts that evolution at the species level ("empirical evolution") can be explained by natural processes (ToE).

It walks like evolution, it talks like evolution, it sure looks like evolution ...

But here is where PC departs from Darwinism - it doesn't accept that ToE (or any form of science, for that matter) can explain the history of life on earth.

Because instead of evolution, it is god/s using their middle finger to create the appearance of evolution.

Another way it is different: "Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability, it can't tell you where or when god/s will give/gave you the finger. It has no practical application.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

... or for any practical application of ...

As the leading proponent of "Progressive Creation" on this forum, can you tell us what practical application it has?

Enjoy