Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
To repeat the obvious, most evolutionary biologists are not atheists.
I reason I often quote Gould is, he seemed to be one of the few evolutionist scientists who was willing to talk honestly about the fossil record. If it wasn't for scientists like him, the scientific community would probably still be pushing the myth that the fossil record supports Dawin's theory of gradualism. Gould et al let the cat out the bag -
And if it wasn't for Darwin, most religionists would be pushing the myth that the life we see around us was put here fully formed 6,000 years ago.
My staement above, is, of course, false - like yours. There was nothing magical about either Darwin or Gould. If neither had existed the facts of evolution would have been discovered and developed by someone else. Darwin discovered what he could at the time. Many others since have discovered more - including Gould.
There is nothing about punctuated equilibrium that is a challenge to the ToE; it's merely another discovery about how it works. That's what science does; improves knowledge about how thing are. Gould, like Darwin, is a good example of good science - he (and Eldredge) followed the evidence.
And it doesn't help you either. Life began billions of years before the Cambrian and evolution continued for hundreds of millions afterwards. Insescts, fish and mammals did not exist in the Cambrian and moden man - the apparent reason for god's creation - is less than quarter of a million years old. Your god took a hell of a long way round to get to the point. Almost like he didn't know what he was doing. Almost random eh?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
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.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Please be advised that his quote deals with the time-frame of the Cambrian "Period", not the Cambrian "explosion".
Does this mean that you are going to give us a precise date for your explosion?
None of these facts are inconsistent with my creation model. Creation unfolded progressively over billions of years - it could easily be mistaken for evolution, as that is what the overall picture looks like.
Great! Then you can give us the diagnostic evidence that support your PC model over the evolution model.
After that, maybe you can give us some of the possible applications of your PC to practical science.
I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no use for UCA.
Except that is not my claim. Read the OP.
That's exactly what the OP says. Here it is again to remind you:
quote: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.
When you said UCA was useless, what else did you mean other than it has no use?
Oh what a lovely encomium, such a paean of praise to the ToE. This is the sort of thing that once upon a time would have made me proud to be a believer in the ToE.
However, they are standing on the backs of countless scientists who went before them and developed our current knowledge based on the theory of evolution. I know of NO significant advancement in knowledge put forth by adherents to the "theory of creationism"...
Nor do I, but then I also don't believe what you are calling knowledge based on the ToE is anything more than what can be discovered through study of the normal Mendelian variations within a given species and not about the ToE at all. You offer no examples. Your piece is a marvel of straight assertion.
What we actually "think" is that if we were to give up conclusions based on evidence and accept conclusion based on religious ideology, biological sciences, and indeed sciences as a whole, would be rendered useless.
Hoo, talk about a straw man. Well, perhaps it applies to some creationists, but who knows since you just lump us all together so parhaps it applies to none of us. However, your description of what you "think" is sort of like a pledge of allegiance rather than a statement of fact. You think you base your conclusions on evidence but do you really? What conclusions are you talking about? Again you assert and do not give examples. And most creationists do not base their thoughts on "religious ideology," that is certainly a straw man made up out of simple bias and no actual thought at all about what creationists are doing. Come off it HBD.
I look forward to answering the rest of your message which is full of interesting examples of evo confusion with normal variation within species and a rather strange explanation of what you consider to be the usefulness of the ToE that will be fun to take apart. But I want to do a good job of it so I'll come back to it.
Mendelian variations within a given species and not about the ToE at all.
You do realize that Mendelian inheritance is 19th century understanding of genetics. Mendelian genetics is barely mentioned in advance genetics courses anymore.
You offer no examples.
Examples are too difficult for you to understand. I have tried before.
Actually, I have an article that I am working on as part of a research report that would be great for this subject. I don't have time right now to break it down into pieces and explain each part in detail so there is even an inkling of possibility that you could understand it. And it would be pointless for me to just post the reference. But I will try to get to it in a couple of weeks after I get through this busy time.
Your piece is a marvel of straight assertion.
Lol. You're funny.
You think you base your conclusions on evidence but do you really?
And most creationists do not base their thoughts on "religious ideology,"
Lol. You're funny.
so I'll come back to it.
I will look forward to your response that will be full of well-evidenced, non-assertion type arguments based on an advanced knowledge of modern genetics.
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
Mendelian genetics is good enough to describe the majority of genetic events within a species genome no matter what sophisticated hooha is being taught in the name of the ToE.
Nice to have a cheerful discussion at least. So here's the rest of your earlier post:
I am going to try to explain why the theory of evolution has such value to biological science and why we consider the ToE to be the "unifying theory of all biology."
Oh good, bring it on.
â€¦ I hope to make a case for how the concept of common descent is useful (and indeed a central concept) in biological science.
I'm all ears. Carry on.
In order to make my point here, I am going to use the germ theory of disease (GT) as an example.
Somehow I don't think this is going to go well.
Before the GT was developed, there was all kinds of wacky ideas about what caused disease. Angry and vengeful gods inflicted disease on rebellious persons, the four humors, evil night air, spontaneous generation etc. The GT gave us a framework with which to explain the cause of disease. No longer do we have to test all these alternate hypotheses about the cause of disease, we go straight to the germ theory and expect that disease is caused by some type of microorganism. Follow me so far? The GT gave us a framework that allows us to automatically reject discredited hypotheses and follow an hypothesis that can lead to curative treatments.
But wait! Hasn't the germ theory of disease been disproven? There are diseases that are genetic with no microbe association (ie. Down syndrome) and diseases that are caused nutrient deficiencies (ie. scurvy). So this disproves the GT right? Nope. We have learned to recognize the symptoms of the various types of diseases and can test for which category any particular disease belongs.
Gosh HBD, this is the sort of history of science we all got in elementary school. It's really kind of embarrassing. Why are you talking down to dredge like this? He's a creationist, not a child.
In the same way, the theory of evolution provides us with a framework by which we can reject failed hypotheses about how organisms change over time and allows us to focus on research that works.
I really see no reasonable comparison here. It just seems like an article of faith that they must be the same because you really do believe the ToE is science that explains the formerly unexplainable or wrongly explained. But I have a question, which it seems to me you should have answered already in your discussion: What "failed hypotheses" were there "about how organisms change over time" that the ToE answered? I'm drawing a blank. Were there such hypotheses? And what if the ToE's answer is also wrong? Is that a possibility? And I think I'm going to need an example of how research based on the ToE "works" since of course the idea gets a big eye-roll from me.
This is a really important aspect of scientific theories, they offer a cohesive explanation of the facts that allow us to immediately apply that framework to a question.
Uh yeah, but the question itself has to be important and I really don't see how it is. Why do you need to know "how organisms change over time?" How does that help you in your work?. On the scale of species-to-species evolution of course. I can certainly see a use for knowing how variations occur within a species, but that's not the ToE.
For example, my daughter and I have a good natured argument about the reality of mermaids. Her claim is that since we have not explored but a small proportion of the ocean we can't say for certain that mermaids don't exist. My argument is that I know mermaids don't exist because they would not fit anywhere on the tree of life.
While this is kind of a silly example, it illustrates the concept of the predictive power that the ToE has. If I discover a new organism, I don't wonder if it was created yesterday...
I must interject here that neither does a YEC creationist, we know it descended from the same kind of organism as itself, because that's how reproduction works, and you shouldn't have to look far to discover the parent organism which would be very much like it with some differences. It should be nearby if it's a plant. That doesn't take much predictive power.
I know, based on the theory of evolution, that it has an ancestral population.
You don't need the ToE to recognize that obvious fact. You probably don't even need to know much Mendelian genetics either, it's just common knowledge.
When I study a group of species, I know, based on the ToE, that they share a common ancestor
ANY old group of species? Surely you mean species that obviously have much in common? This is on the level of microevolution/ ordinary variation within a species too since any group of such species would have a common parent or at most grandparent, all with the same genome, and far from any species-to-species level of change. If you actually mean you know ANY set of species "share a common ancestor" then you are heavy into the theory of evolution and are failing to show how any of this is important. I have no idea why you consider it important to your work to see this relationship though, you don't say why.
and the examination of how they are related can give insight into how they evolved,
As I just said I'm sure they "evolved" within a particular genome and if you think they don't share a genome you need to prove it, but there is no reason to think so at all if you are talking about a group of very similar organisms. And again, why it matters remains a mystery.
how traits are regulated,
What does this mean and why is it necessary to know the history of its descent in order to study it?
how they utilize resources, etc.
Same questions as above.
Believe it or not, this idea of relatedness forms the foundation of most biological inquiries.
This is just some kind of mystification without more explanation.
Your idea is that every genus is specially created (or whatever your position is specifically) and that this idea explains observations just as well as the ToE.
Well, something like that is my position but I also don't see how the ToE helps with the questions you have in mind and I also don't see the importance of it.
That's like saying that the idea of a painted dome above the earth explains why the sky is blue. I mean, yea it does explain it... but the explanation doesn't provide any predictive power.
This is such a bizarre straw man I don't see how you could bring yourself to make it. I also don't see how any of this has any importance in any of your examples so far. Regulation of traits? Whatever that means. Utilization of resources? Must be easier ways to get this information.
What predictive power does special creation have that allows us to better understand life on earth? What objective criteria do you use to determine if two organisms share a common ancestor or not?
Gosh, similarity of any two (sub)species ought to tell one a great deal about any relatedness between the two, if it matters, and I'm really not seeing how it matters as you are claiming it does.
What advantage would a theory of special creation have over the current theory?
The phrase "special creation" is meaningless to me. You mean creation of separate Kinds at the Creation or what?
Offhand my answer to your question is that it's always better to know the truth than to be in thrall to a fantasy such as the ToE, but as for the specific question about advantage I don't see any particular advantage to anything you've said about the ToE's influence so I don't really know how to answer you. I always think in terms of variation within the Kind or its genome, I find it quite useful. And variation within the genome can form a very complex tree all of itself, you really don't need the ToE's species to species idea.
Perhaps dredge will do a better job with this.
Summary: While the specifics of a universal common ancestor may not be particularly useful to biology, the concept of common descent is
Do you think you've demonstrated this? I still see nothing of any particular interest about this concept or how you make use of it. How does knowing the relatedness of species you just happen to come across benefit your work? Why do you need to know this? Oh regulation of traits, utilization of sources or something like that? And that matters how and why? and why would genetic relatedness govern that anyway?
- in fact, it is central to biological studies. Biology relies on the concept of common ancestry to allow comparisons between organisms and to narrow down the search field to those comparisons that would provide the most likely chance of answering the question.
A question whose importance continues to elude me based on what you've said about it so far.
Currently, there are no groups that are know to NOT share a common ancestor.
Oops now we are way beyond my supposition of similarity into the realm of pure theory. How do you know this? What on earth are you talking about?
Discovering that 2 or more groups do not share a common ancestor would have little effect on the ToE, but would introduce some caveats and not allow direct comparison between those groups.
I have a feeling this discussion just took a dive into the Twilight Zone.
========================== ABE: * Later I realized I didn't really grasp what you were saying about studying a group of species. I did ask what you meant, but now I think you meant ANY group at all? A tropical big-leafed plant plus a delicate small-leafed fern plus a rhododendron bush plus a stunted African tree plus a desert-blooming wildflower etc etc etc. Yes?. So what you are saying is that all plants, and I'm assuming you had plants in mind since you are a botanist but I suppose animals would do as well, so all you are really saying is that you approach all plants in terms of the ToE's descent from a common ancestor, and that you find this useful for your work? Then you give three ways it is useful: knowing how they evolved, regulation of traits and utilization of resources. None of which makes any sense to me. That is, how common descent helps with this is not described and to my mind doesn't seem necessary at all. Even if there's something useful about knowing such things which also wasn't explained. So this gets me out of the Twilight Zone but I'm still in the dark about what you think you are saying.
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine the way we do it. Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines in helpful directions.
Unsurprisingly, you make this claim without any evidence to back it up.
Why is accepting that all life on earth shares a common ancestor essential for guiding the creation of new medicines or for any practical application of medical science? You seem to be conflating the principle (fact) of common descent with the theory of (L)UCA.
Are you saying YEC scientists couldn't develop drugs and vaccines? If so, why not?