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
...
3132
33
34353637Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 481 of 555 (850561)
04-10-2019 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:09 PM


Faith writes:

You call that macroevolution?

I didn't say anything about macroevolution.

Faith writes:

of course YEC beliefs are the basis for all science.

Your delusions are showing.

Faith writes:

Evos are really self deceived.

Says the person who uses a fictional book as guide to life.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:41 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 482 of 555 (850567)
04-10-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Tanypteryx
04-10-2019 2:30 PM


Oh gosh, you didn't actually use the term "macroevolution?" So that means it isn't necessary to the ToE? Ha ha.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-10-2019 2:30 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Stile, posted 04-10-2019 2:56 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 484 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2019 3:57 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 485 by ringo, posted 04-10-2019 4:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3437
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 483 of 555 (850572)
04-10-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:41 PM


The conversion in your mind must be fascinating.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 484 of 555 (850577)
04-10-2019 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:41 PM


Oh gosh, you didn't actually use the term "macroevolution?" So that means it isn't necessary to the ToE?

It really isn't necessary to the ToE.

Even though it has been mentioned dozens of times here, there and beyond I can see you're going to be hard pressed to figure out why.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16358
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 485 of 555 (850580)
04-10-2019 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:41 PM


Faith writes:

So that means it isn't necessary to the ToE?


It's kinda like how a cup-holder isn't necessary in a car, even if every car has one.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by dwise1, posted 04-10-2019 4:30 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(6)
Message 486 of 555 (850581)
04-10-2019 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by ringo
04-10-2019 4:14 PM


But if you use the cup-holder on your computer, then you break the CD-ROM drive.
(old tech-support joke)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by ringo, posted 04-10-2019 4:14 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1498
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 487 of 555 (850610)
04-11-2019 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
04-07-2019 11:54 PM


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.

As I said, our understanding of genetics has gone way beyond Mendelian inheritance. We barely even talk about Mendelian inheritance anymore it is so rare. I don't understand why you feel insulted when I present a simple example of a theory (my illustration using germ theory) because I was talking at an "elementary school level" but you can only think of genetics in terms of Mendelian inheritance which is itself "elementary level genetics."

But anyway... Let's assume you're right and Mendelian inheritace is the primary mechanism that generates variation in a species. This of course would apply to sexually reproducing diploid organisms. Shuffling alleles through recombination is what creates genotypic and phenotypic differences. What about asexually reproducing haploid organisms (these types of organisms make up the vast majority of species on earth)?

So what I'm thinking is that if Mendelian inheritance is the primary driver of diversity and the other factors are hooha, then asexual haploids should have very low genotypic and phenotypic diversity since they don't shuffle alleles around. Is that what you would predict?

I am asking a serious question here and want you to really think about it and make a prediction as to what diversity in asexual haploids would be like. They do not undergo recombination so they cannot shuffle alleles around in that way. I predict, based on your theory of genetics, that asexual haploids would have almost no diversity. Do you agree?

HBD


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 11:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 488 of 555 (850622)
04-11-2019 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:00 AM


Re: quote mining -- misrepresentation
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.

And that is what the current evidence shows, whether that original ancestor derived from horizontal gene sharing single cell life or not.

But that is still not from the section that gives the definition of evolution. Conflating them is quote mining, a form of lying.

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."

Actually it is describing simply the same process. When the parent population begins to divide into two daughter populations the process is the same, offspring from parents and grandparents.

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.

Since macroevolution (as defined and used by scientists) has been observed, it is a fact that it occurs.

Further all life falls into a pattern of nested hierarchies (clades) and the end result is a common ancestor population for all life.

quote:
Tree of Life


That is what the evidence shows. This is an observation of the evidence, and it shows how the theory of evolution explains the evidence in a concise and easy to understand way.

Other concepts, like "Progressive Creation" do not explain the pattern of nested hierarchies, nor the placement of fossils within the spatial-temporal matrix.

Does "Progressive Creation" have any practical use? or is it just a desperate shell game to hide evidence from believers.

This is how it works:

Since macroevolution = microevolution + time, ...

Indeed, but I would say "macroevolution = microevolution over multiple generations" rather than time.

... (L)UCA = ToE + time.

This does not follow -- it is a non-sequitur conclusion, and it's rather backwards.

(L)UCA + many multiple generations of life = the natural history of life on the planet, and it is explained by ToE.

Further, the pattern of nested hierarchies and the location of fossil evidence within the spatial-temporal matrix match what the theory predicts for the pattern of life.

Other concepts, like "Progressive Creation" do not predict the pattern of nested hierarchies, nor the placement of fossils within the spatial-temporal matrix.

Does "Progressive Creation" have any practical use? or is it just a desperate shell game to hide evidence from believers.

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 454 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(4)
Message 489 of 555 (850623)
04-11-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Dredge
04-10-2019 2:22 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
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".

So you agree that your use of genera was mistaken, good.

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

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

And again, honorary degrees are not issued in specific fields. Strange obsession here.

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.

Except that microevolution is what occurs within each generation of a breeding population, while macroevolution is the accumulation of changes over multiple generations.

Curiously, biologists have no difficulty in distinguishing one from the other, and have no need for this distinction. Since the process of evolution is observed in the fossil record as well as in life today it is empirically observed evolution. Theoretical evolution is the theory of evolution (hint - theory → theoretical). Again scientists have no trouble with this.

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.

Another shell game with the words. Typical creationist ploy. When you get a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed biological science journal that uses this minor distinction let me know.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 458 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:22 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:43 AM RAZD has responded

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


Message 490 of 555 (850756)
04-14-2019 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Tangle
04-07-2019 3:38 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tangle writes:

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.


1. If everyone believed that, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to applied science ... which just goes to show how irrelevant interpretations of ancient history (including Darwinism) are to real-world science.

2. You might be surprised how many religionists today accept the scientific concensus that says the history of life on earth began billons of years old - science which has nothing to do with Darwin.

There is nothing about punctuated equilibrium that is a challenge to the ToE; it's merely another discovery about how it works.

1. PE is a far-fetched, band-aid measure that attempts to cover up all those "embarrassing" (Gould) gaps in the fossil record.

2. The untestable theory of PE is a "discovery"? Hilarious! PE is an untestable theory within an untestable theory - and this is science?

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.

... which is why I describe the history of life as PROGRESSIVE creation.

moden man - the apparent reason for god's creation - is less than quarter of a million years old.

Please be advised that the first human beings didn't evolve but were created from inanimate matter 6000-10000 years ago.

moden man - the apparent reason for god's creation ... 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.

An atheist with preconceptions about how and why God went about creating life on earth ... that adds up to a fascinating melange of thoughts.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

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 438 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 3:38 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2019 3:37 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 491 of 555 (850757)
04-14-2019 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by RAZD
04-07-2019 8:19 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
RAZD writes:

"Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability


So what?

it can't tell you where or when god/s will give/gave you the finger.

I've actually covered this before: I believe "God's finger" in evident every time a species from one genus appears to "evolve" into a species of a different genus (something that has never been observed, despite thousands of years of selective breeding by human beings, using every technique under the sun, trying to change the morphology of various animals and plants).

It has no practical application

You expect a religous (non-scientific) theory to have a practical, scientific application?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2019 8:19 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2019 9:02 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 505 by Theodoric, posted 04-14-2019 6:16 PM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 492 of 555 (850758)
04-14-2019 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:13 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:

1. If everyone believed that, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to applied science ... which just goes to show how irrelevant interpretations of ancient history (including Darwinism) are to real-world science.

Yeh, science would just think it was magic how everything worked without any coherent theory about anything, from radioactive decay, disease to stellar movements.

You might be surprised how many religionists today accept the scientific concensus that says the history of life on earth began billons of years old - science which has nothing to do with Darwin.

Nope, I'm not at all surprised. What did surprise me was how many religionists are still YECs.

1. PE is a far-fetched, band-aid measure that attempts to cover up all those "embarrassing" (Gould) gaps in the fossil record.

If you say so.

2. The untestable theory of PE is a "discovery"? Hilarious! PE is an untestable theory within an untestable theory - and this is science?

PE is an observation.

which is why I describe the history of life as PROGRESSIVE creation.

You can describe it anyway you like because you're just making it up without evidence.

Please be advised that the first human beings didn't evolve but were created from inanimate matter 6000-10000 years ago.

Well now we have it. H. sapiens did not evolve, he was placed here whole by a (Christian) God. Great, now show your workings.

And while you're at it, explain why H. Sapiens have been dated at c200,000 yo.

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 490 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:13 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 493 of 555 (850759)
04-14-2019 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by edge
04-07-2019 11:45 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:

Great! Then you can give us the diagnostic evidence that support your PC model over the evolution model.


A progressive creation model easily accounts for the Cambrian explosion, the never-ending missing-links in the fossil record and the sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history. The theory of evolution has to explain these problems away with yet more theory - punctuated equilibrium, for example.

After that, maybe you can give us some of the possible applications of your PC to practical science.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Expecting a practical application for a religious belief is illogical.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 11:45 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by edge, posted 04-14-2019 9:18 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 494 of 555 (850760)
04-14-2019 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by ringo
04-07-2019 2:25 PM


ringo writes:

That's exactly what the OP says


Sorry, but it's not "exactly what the OP says". The OP specifically asks for PRACTICAL uses for UCA. The concept of UCA is not "useless", because it's useful in evolutionary theory - however it is useless in any practical sense.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by ringo, posted 04-07-2019 2:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by edge, posted 04-14-2019 11:14 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 503 by ringo, posted 04-14-2019 2:22 PM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 495 of 555 (850761)
04-14-2019 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Theodoric
04-09-2019 2:31 PM


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

As this is a forum where we discuss science, I assumed that "scientific" argument was implied.


The name of this site is "Evolution verses Creation". Are you trying to tell me the "Creation" part is strictly scientiific?

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.

As an atheist you must delude yourself that there is a scientific explanation for "problematic" evidence - the Cambrian explosion, for example.

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.

You began your message by complaining that this site is for science only and three sentences later you want to talk about God - make up your mind!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Theodoric, posted 04-09-2019 2:31 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by JonF, posted 04-14-2019 9:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 501 by JonF, posted 04-14-2019 9:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 504 by Theodoric, posted 04-14-2019 6:08 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
34353637Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019