EvC Forum: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

...

Author

Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

edge

Member (Idle past 1726 days)

Posts: 4696

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 01-09-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 1305 of 1385 (857870)
07-12-2019 9:45 AM

Reply to: Message 1302 by Dredge
07-12-2019 12:32 AM

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.

As previously shown, you have no need for explanations nor do you have any, nor do you care. However, some people find explanations useful.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1302 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:32 AM		Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 1312 by Dredge, posted 07-17-2019 2:01 AM		edge has replied

edge

Member (Idle past 1726 days)

Posts: 4696

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 01-09-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 1306 of 1385 (857872)
07-12-2019 9:49 AM

Reply to: Message 1299 by Dredge
07-10-2019 1:27 AM

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

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?

It doesn't.

To you.

Thank you for your opinion.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1299 by Dredge, posted 07-10-2019 1:27 AM		Dredge has not replied

edge

Member (Idle past 1726 days)

Posts: 4696

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 01-09-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 1308 of 1385 (858039)
07-15-2019 10:02 AM

Reply to: Message 1307 by Dredge
07-15-2019 2:59 AM

Whatever . I’m not interested in debating your pointless analogies.

And some of us are not interested in debating your pointless assertions.

Try giving me facts instead, such as practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

Give us a reason why anyone here should bother to give you facts.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1307 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2019 2:59 AM		Dredge has not replied

edge

Member (Idle past 1726 days)

Posts: 4696

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 01-09-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 1314 of 1385 (858131)
07-17-2019 9:33 AM

Reply to: Message 1312 by Dredge
07-17-2019 2:01 AM

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.

And your opinion means what?

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.

So, you go from "Darwinian interpretations" (whatever that means) having no practical application to practical biology, to Darwinian interpretations being useless.

Bait and switch much?

And you haven't shown either to be the case. That's a major fail.

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?

Did anyone say that?

Strawman much?

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

But you do care about UN-scientific theories that are untestable and could be wrong.

Sure, that makes sense.

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.

According to you. The person who doesn't care about explanations.

You are fount of common sense today.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1312 by Dredge, posted 07-17-2019 2:01 AM		Dredge has not replied

edge

Member (Idle past 1726 days)

Posts: 4696

From: Colorado, USA

Joined: 01-09-2002

Normal Thread Display

Message 1315 of 1385 (858135)
07-17-2019 9:50 AM

Reply to: Message 1313 by Dredge
07-17-2019 2:05 AM

Huh?

Repeating my question doesn't help.

You are the one who brought mice into the discussion.

Which part of the paper is incorrect?

I have no idea. The point is that you provide a source that has an obvious agenda.

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.

Actually, it doesn't matter to me at all. If the article is valid, there may be other reasons that you fail to entertain. I will let the biologists handle that question.

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, what is your point?

So the Darwinist interpretation of that history is as useless and irrelevant to applied science as my (or any) creationist interpretation.

So, you aren't worried about conformity with reality or any such minor detail, yes? Your opinion is of no consequence.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1313 by Dredge, posted 07-17-2019 2:05 AM		Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 1316 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2019 2:29 PM		edge has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

...

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	PaulK
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0