Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
249 online now:
DrJones*, Percy (Admin), RAZD (3 members, 246 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,835 Year: 1,583/23,288 Month: 1,583/1,851 Week: 223/484 Day: 41/105 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 274 of 1384 (849926)
03-26-2019 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dredge
03-24-2019 3:48 AM


Analogies
Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection.

I've been trying to think of a decent analogy, to help you out with your misapprehension that LUCA forms part of the theory of evolution.

Let's try flight.

In simple terms, the theory of flight is that the faster flow of air over the curved upper surface of a wing results in less air pressure than the slower flow of air over the flat(ter) lower surface. This difference in air pressure exerts an upward force on the wing, which when it exceeds gravity, results in the wing rising. There's the theory.

Now, it's a not unreasonable inference to draw from the theory that there is an optimum wing design - one which results in greater lift than any other design. (Indeed, there are people spending their working days trying to find ever better wing designs).

However, the existence and identification (if it exists) of the optimum wing design is not part of the theory of flight. (For one thing, an optimum design is not, by definition, falsifiable). It's a reasonable inference that one exists, but an optimum wing is not part of the theory. The theory continues to explain how birds and planes fly , and continues to guide the design of better wings, without any need to reference an optimum wing design.

And that is how it is with the ToE and LUCA. LUCA is a reasonable inference of the ToE, but it is not part of the theory.

(ABE - I'm ignoring the additional complexities presented by flapping wings/ornithopters - hat-tip to Frank Herbert).

Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dredge, posted 03-24-2019 3:48 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 8:41 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 296 of 1384 (849983)
03-28-2019 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dredge
03-28-2019 1:41 AM


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

Oh good ! We get to invent our own definitions.

Let's see how that works.

One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that on 27 March 2019, a race of blue leprechauns with pink spots will rise up and occupy Jerusalem. I know this because I have studied the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and that is what it says. All of the experts are wrong and I am right. Since Jersualem is still unoccupied by blue leprechauns with pink spots, the whole basis of Christianity is undermined.

Now, is that a legitimate argument against Christianity, or does it just make me look like a pillock ?

Edited by vimesey, : Typo


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dredge, posted 03-28-2019 1:41 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ProtoTypical, posted 03-28-2019 8:01 AM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 329 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 11:09 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 331 of 1384 (850105)
03-31-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Dredge
03-31-2019 11:09 AM


Re: LUCA
Something that would take at least a week's worth of lessons - and which would involve me in way more time typing on my phone than I'm prepared to invest in you, since you have made it clear that you are interested only in trying (very poorly - repetition is very weak as a technique Dredge - you can do better) to play games and not in learning.

Suffice to say, though, that none of the lessons would involve invisible magic sky people with wands.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Dredge, posted 03-31-2019 11:09 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 4:21 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 355 of 1384 (850153)
04-02-2019 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Dredge
04-02-2019 4:21 AM


Re: LUCA
How about a short definition of "the theory of evolution"?

As Tangle has pointed out, your game is to try to reduce the complexities of the ToE to sound bites and bumper stickers, so that you can try to mess around with the linguistic limitations of those bumper stickers in an effort to discredit the detailed theory.

The ToE is a very large and complex field - my mother spent years on her doctorate, just examining certain aspects of it. The only chance anyone has of properly understanding it is to spend a long time, with a good brain, studying it.

Scientists are pretty helpful and decent people on the whole, and like to help non-scientists by trying to encapsulate the science in short and easy to follow generalisations - or sound bites and bumper stickers, if you prefer. And it's great they do, because it can lead to a more rounded, better informed population. Wikipedia is good for soundbites like that.

But the recipients of those soundbites don't get to have a seat at the table when it comes to attempting to discredit the science, based simply on the soundbites. People only get to do that when they've fully studied the science and understood it. That would be like discussing and critiquing a novel, having just been told the chapter headings.

If you want credibility, study the science first - if you don't, you'll only ever be a complete and utter muppet on the subject.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 4:21 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 507 of 1384 (850827)
04-15-2019 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Logically incorrect - scientific knowledge and understanding has been shown to be continually expanding - new explanations for phenomena are regularly discovered.

Ergo your prediction is unverifiable, and does therefore not qualify as a prediction for the purposes of the definition of a theory.

Care to try again ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 518 of 1384 (851088)
04-19-2019 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 514 by Dredge
04-19-2019 3:15 AM


What is this - an appeal to authority?

Too bloody right we appeal to authority ! It’s a whole crap load better than an appeal to ignorance or delusion.

There are two planes on the runway - one is piloted by a qualified pilot, with 5,000 flights under her belt, and the other by someone who has never flown a plane, but who tells you that the scientists should not be listened to and that the reason planes don’t fall out of the sky is that God holds them up in the air.

Which plane do you get on ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:15 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:42 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 587 of 1384 (851546)
04-28-2019 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by Dredge
04-28-2019 1:42 AM


Oh, so you think I should place my trust in evolutionary scientists? 

Yes.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:42 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 908 of 1384 (852358)
05-09-2019 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 907 by Taq
05-09-2019 11:40 AM


Re: Progressive Creation - no predictive ability - take 2
Why would aliens produce a nested hierarchy?

It was Slartibartfast pissing around after he got bored with fjords ;-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by Taq, posted 05-09-2019 11:40 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 921 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2019 7:53 PM vimesey has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1074 of 1384 (853378)
05-27-2019 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1073 by Dredge
05-26-2019 11:23 PM


Re: YEC vs OEC
you understand of course that a belief and a scientific explanation can be mutually exclusive

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1073 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2019 11:23 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1097 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2019 4:19 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1174 of 1384 (854015)
06-04-2019 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1170 by Dredge
06-04-2019 2:42 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Interesting - an assumption that Dr Jones is a man.

Come on now Dredge - women can be doctors you know.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2019 2:42 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1178 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2019 10:08 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1179 of 1384 (854026)
06-04-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1178 by Theodoric
06-04-2019 10:08 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Yep - we do spend a lot of time raking over the world's troubles on these pages, but it's good to remember we've come a long way, (even if there is still a long way to go).

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1178 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2019 10:08 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1197 by Dredge, posted 06-07-2019 2:04 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 1205 of 1384 (854348)
06-07-2019 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1197 by Dredge
06-07-2019 2:04 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
But really, a civilization that's too stupid to even reproduce in sufficient numbers doesn't deserve to survive.

If we limit our analysis to that portion of the female population which knows you, failure to reproduce would actually be a sign of intelligence, rather than stupidity.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1197 by Dredge, posted 06-07-2019 2:04 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1214 of 1384 (854392)
06-08-2019 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Dredge
06-08-2019 1:01 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Every nation that has embraced feminsim now has below-replacement birth-rates.

This diversion is off topic, but it’s tangential to it to demonstrate that, when it comes to being wrong, dredge is a world leader:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/birth-rate-vs-death-rate (Apologies, I tried to embed the image, but it failed)

The data are from 2016, but they are the most recent on the Our World in Data website.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Dredge, posted 06-08-2019 1:01 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1219 by Dredge, posted 06-09-2019 2:48 AM vimesey has not yet responded
 Message 1224 by Dredge, posted 06-09-2019 3:46 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1048
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1311 of 1384 (858075)
07-15-2019 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by RAZD
07-15-2019 12:45 PM


Re: It tells us who we are.
It tells us who we are.

Most of us, yes.

Certain others require a course in faecal recognition for that.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2019 12:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020