Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 5:51 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
37Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 451 of 555 (850489)
04-09-2019 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Dredge
04-09-2019 12:52 AM


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


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Dredge, posted 04-09-2019 12:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6040
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 452 of 555 (850504)
04-09-2019 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Dredge
04-02-2019 3:20 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
I think what you mean is, "God did it" is not a scientific argument

As this is a forum where we discuss science, I assumed that "scientific" argument was implied. I often forget that creos and fundies manipulate language when they cannot manipulate evidence and factual data.

Have you ever noticed that anything where you make the claim "God did it" you have no evidence, and that the myriad of things that people used to say god did it we actually have scientific evidence for.
Also, before you can claim god did it you need to explain which god or actually define this entity so we know what you mean by god.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:20 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6040
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 453 of 555 (850505)
04-09-2019 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Dredge
04-07-2019 3:34 AM


Troll

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 3:34 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 454 of 555 (850518)
04-10-2019 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by RAZD
04-05-2019 8:36 AM


Re: quote mining -- misrepresentation
RAZD writes:

"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.


1. It says, "all life on Earth shares a common ancestor." Notice the words "all life". There is only one way ALL LIFE on earth can share a common ancestor - it's if ALL life on earth descended from ONE common ancestor.

2. Besides being ridiculously simplistic, the comparison to one's grandparents is just plain dumb, as descent from one's grandparents involves simply two generations within one species - which is vastly different to what is described a few sentences earlier: "large scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

3. The sentence, "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 grandparent." also represents a classical example of Darwinist propaganda: The idea is mislead the reader into thinking that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor is just as sure and factual as a family descending from grandparents. It's the ol', "since microevolution is true, macroevolution is true" fallacy. But you can't fool all the people all the time.

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

Nice try, but on the contrary, you have been found guilty of reading into a quote something that isn't there - which is form of quote-mining.

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.

This is how it works:

Since macroevolution = microevolution + time,

(L)UCA = ToE + time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2019 8:36 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by JonF, posted 04-10-2019 11:08 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 488 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2019 10:25 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 455 of 555 (850519)
04-10-2019 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Stile
04-05-2019 8:50 AM


Stile writes:

searching-for-accurate-reality


ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Stile, posted 04-05-2019 8:50 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 456 of 555 (850520)
04-10-2019 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by JonF
04-05-2019 9:41 AM


JonF writes:

I see you don't know much set theory. If a subset of the ToE has practical use then the ToE has practical use.


In that case, if a subset of the theory does not have a practical use, that means the theory does not have practical use.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by JonF, posted 04-05-2019 9:41 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by JonF, posted 04-10-2019 11:16 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 457 of 555 (850521)
04-10-2019 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by edge
04-05-2019 9:53 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:

I just love it when a YEC tells me what evolution is supposed to do or not do.


I'm not a YEC.

instantaneous expansion
Who said anything about an "instanteous expansion"?

ten million years is not an explosive event

Tell that to the scientists who use the term "Cambrian explosion".

particularly when (Gould) is arguing for PE

"The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and PUZZLING event in the history of life" - S. J. Gould. It seems PE didn't explain the Cambrian explosion even for Gould.

Why is it irrelevant? Because you don't want it to be?

No, because simple logic says it's irrelevant.

the sparsity of fossils from that period

So your theory relies on fossil "evidence" that isn't known to exist. And you wonder why some folks are dubious about evolution science (so-called)!

So explain it.

Mammals belong to the Chordata Phylum. The Chordate Phylum had its beginning during the Cambrian explosion.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by edge, posted 04-05-2019 9:53 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:32 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 458 of 555 (850522)
04-10-2019 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by RAZD
04-05-2019 10:17 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
RAZD writes:

Dredge writes:

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

RAZD writes:

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


That's nice of you to say, but I actually wouldn't take much notice of what I said before because, for example, there are several genera of cats within the cat "kind".

You are not a biologist

Well, not yet. But when I receive my honourary doctorates in evolutionary biology I will be.

You lose - it is not a "better idea" ... it avoids the science

Ah, now this is a good example of why I will receive three honouray doctorates in evoltuionary biology and you will receive exactly none.

Referring to observed evolution as "empirical evolution" doesn't avoid the science in any way and it will create a clear distinction between factual evolution and theoretical evolution. The term "microevolution" is rather vague as there is no defined point where MICROevolution ends and MACROevolution begins.

Furthermore, when speaking of "evolution", it is sometimes unclear what is being referred to - is it empirical evolution or theoretical evolution, or both? But if "empirical evolution" is used (as I have defined it), it's meaning is clear and unambiguous.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2019 10:17 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 10:03 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 489 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2019 10:36 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 459 of 555 (850523)
04-10-2019 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Stile
04-05-2019 1:33 PM


Stile writes:

No, that's unreasonable. Don't be silly.


No, it's not unreasonable or silly - if you google "practical uses for the theory of evolution", the first result is likely to be a Wikipedia article which claims to provide "practical applications" of "the theory of evolution".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Stile, posted 04-05-2019 1:33 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Stile, posted 04-10-2019 2:08 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 460 of 555 (850524)
04-10-2019 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by dwise1
04-06-2019 12:32 AM


dwise1 writes:

Dan Barker described Christian fundamentalism (in which he had grown up) as "when your theology becomes your psychology."

Did Dan Barker notice that the belief system of evolution has become "your psychology" to millions of people?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:32 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 461 of 555 (850525)
04-10-2019 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by dwise1
04-06-2019 12:49 AM


Re: Pills
dwise1 writes:

No you wouldn't be embarrassed and you know full well that you never would. You are a CREATIONIST, for cryin' out loud! You lie about everything you can and NEVER HAVE ANY SHAME ABOUT YOUR LIES AND DECEPTIONS! Trust me; I've been dealing with you creationists and your slimy ways since the late 1980's.


First of all, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Secondly, I was hoping that you would admit your embarrassing blunder that was message 370, followed maybe by an apology. Alas, what I got instead was a anti-theist, ad hominem rant instead. Oh well .... you at least provided a little entertainment, for which I say, Thank you.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:49 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 462 of 555 (850527)
04-10-2019 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by herebedragons
04-06-2019 2:16 PM


herebedragons writes:

Being educated about a subject hardly counts as indoctrination


Dobzhansky wrote, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". What he meant by "evolution" is the history of life on earth according to evolutionary theory. That being so, it is nonsense that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of" this history - because there is not one practical use in all of applied biology that owes its existence to this history.

It is certainly possible for a Creationist (or whatever variation of evolution denier you prefer) to work in a biological field, and even be quite successful, all the while denying the theory of evolution.

Really? What is your definition of the theory of evolution? If Douglas Futuyma is correct - "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution" - then I can't see how anyone who denies "the theory of evolution" can possibly operate as a competent biologist.

Actually the "theory of creationism" states that the theory of evolution is wrong and all who accept it are atheists

A citation, please.

All creationists do is attempt to devalue the theory of evolution by employing misinformation and outright falsehoods.

Are you sure? If "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution" (Futuyma), then I've never heard of any creationist who devalues the theory of evolution. Microevolution is "evolution", after all.

This is a false and misleading characterization of what evolutionary biologists "think."

I once encountered a Ph.D biologist (on the BioLogos site) who claimed it was necesssary to accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor in order for mice to be useful for testing human drugs on. That poor deluded soul was so brainwashed by the cult of evolution that the concept of UCA had become a "reality" that he couldn't think outside of.

I know of NO significant advancement in knowledge put forth by adherents to the "theory of creationism"

If nothing else, this is an excellent example of a straw man argument.

"Evolution is the unifying theory of all biology."

My view on this has since I posted that comment - if one accepts that "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution" (Douglas Futuyma), for example, then one can indeed argue that "evolution is the unifying theory of all biology".

You see, I learnt that there is no definitive definition of "the theory of evolution" and it means different things to different people.

I hope to make a case for how the concept of common descent is useful (and indeed a central concept) in biological science

Thanks for the junior-high biology lesson, but I graduated several decades ago.

If I discover a new organism, I don't wonder if it was created yesterday ... I know, based on the theory of evolution, that it has an ancestral population.

Anyone above the age of about three (and clueless about ToE) would assume that any organism has an ancestral population.

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 knowledge of common ancestry is practically useful only within a genus. We know, for example, that Green Warblers speciate into other Green Warblers - okay, this level of evolution might prove useful in applied science. But rabbiting on about how a species supposedly evolved from some other genus in the distant past is just useless talk. Only common descent that is observable is useful.

this idea of relatedness forms the foundation of most biological inquiries.

"biologicial inquires" could mean anything, including useless theorising about useless ideas - the OP is concerned only with practical uses in applied science.

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 ... but the explanation doesn't provide any predictive power.

1. So what? My idea is not a scientific theory.

2. Can you provide an example of how the almighty predictive power of ToE has proven useful in a practical sense?

(Btw, the fossil record has revealed that the most fundamental prediction of ToE - gradualism - has failed miserably.)

What objective criteria do you use to determine if two species share a common ancestor?

1. Why would I need to do that?

2, Even the village idiot could observe two species of magpies and conclude they are related, but so what?

What advantage would a theory of special creation have over the current theory?

As far as a practical advantage goes - none that I can think of. But in terms of providing an explanation for the fossil record, progressive creation makes much more sense than evolution.

While the specifics of a universal common ancestor may not be particularly useful to biology

"may not be particularly useful to biology"? You almost got it right. Try ... the concept of UCA is not useful to biology at all.

Currently, there are no groups that are know to NOT share a common ancestor

Translation: "It is my BELIEF that currently there are no groups that don't share a common ancestor." There is a big difference between belief and knowledge.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by herebedragons, posted 04-06-2019 2:16 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by edge, posted 04-10-2019 9:51 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 469 by herebedragons, posted 04-10-2019 10:15 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 463 of 555 (850528)
04-10-2019 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Tangle
04-07-2019 3:05 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tangle writes:

In other words, it's the ToE


I didn't know ToE included "a God of the gaps".

Are you saying that process of evolving from 'some kind of rodent' to moden whales required your god to intervene at each/every stage?

More or less.

In other words you can't accept the ToE for religious reasons but can't deny the evidence for the ToE. Cake and eat it eh?
1. I reject human evolution on religious and scientific grounds. But I have no religious objection to the evolution of non-human creatures - however, I reject such evolution for scientific reasons.

2. I've always said evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life. However, I think it's a rather poor explanation, whereas creation is an excellent explanation. All I'm doing is following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 3:05 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2019 4:05 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 464 of 555 (850529)
04-10-2019 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Tangle
04-07-2019 2:52 AM


Why don't you just admit you goofed up and painted yourself into corner?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 2:52 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6745
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 465 of 555 (850530)
04-10-2019 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Dredge
04-10-2019 3:31 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:

I didn't know ToE included "a God of the gaps".

It's your, hypothesis, you explain it.

More or less.

Which? When does he and when doesn't he? Did he start something off 3 billion years ago and then lose interest? Then pop up again in the Cambrian and have a fit of productivity then lose interest again before creating most of our modern species including man?

Did he create anthrax? HIV AIDs? Tape worms? Or was that 'normal' evolution. How come he allowed almost everything he's ever created to go extinct. Why is he so crap at this creation business?

1. I reject human evolution on religious and scientific grounds.

Pick and mix beliefs are very useful.

But I have no religious objection to the evolution of non-human creatures - however, I reject such evolution for scientific reasons.

Evolution is all of a piece, if you reject one part of it you reject it all. You have no scientific objections to evolution. Or at least if you have, you've not given us any yet.

So far your have told us that the ToE (and the concept of UCA) has no practical use, it has, but even if it hadn't it would have no effect on whether it's true or not.

You have told us that the Cambrian radiation is is some kind of proof against the ToE and that gradualism is a cornerstone of the ToE. Neither are true. If they were, there would be no ToE that holds the scientific concensus.

I've always said evolution is the best scientific explanation for the history of life. However, I think it's a rather poor explanation, whereas creation is an excellent explanation.

Magic is a perfect avoidance of explanation. Children are always impressed by it. But sadly magic is a black box, it actually explains nothing at all. Goddidit was used to 'explain' everything from lightening to flu. Sticking goddidit into the ToE is adding an unnecessary and unevidenced factor simply because you have an irrational belief.

All I'm doing is following the evidence, wherever it leads.

Really. Show me this god of yours then that intervenes routinely with the development of species on our planet. Show me how it's done - open the black box for us.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:31 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:09 AM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
37Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019