Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 6:23 PM
25 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: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
353637Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 896
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 496 of 555 (850762)
04-14-2019 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by edge
04-07-2019 10:03 AM


edge writes:

The fact that some scientists find evolutionary concepts useful in both theoretical and applied science.
And if you have 'forgotten', that just makes it easier to deny, yes?


I don't recall denying that. Please point out where I did.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 10:03 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by edge, posted 04-14-2019 9:20 AM Dredge has responded

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


(3)
Message 497 of 555 (850768)
04-14-2019 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:37 AM


Progressive Creation is religious fantasy of no value
RAZD writes:

"Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability


So what?

That means it is useless as a theory.

It has no practical application

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

If you want it to be considered in relation to science theory, yes. If you want it to be considered an ad hoc religious concocted fantasy pretending to be worth discussing, then no ... I would expect it to be full of nonsense, like:

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).

Thanks for admitting that it is useless ad hoc religious concocted fantasy.

This also means it is invalid to use in a science thread, because it is just a (latest in a long line) form of "god-did-it" argument of absolutely no scientific value. This is a science thread, and that means no "god-did-it" fantasies allowed.

But buck-up, it's not completely useless ... it can always serve as a bad example of creationist thinking.

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 491 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:37 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 498 of 555 (850769)
04-14-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:42 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
A progressive creation model easily accounts for the Cambrian explosion, ...

So does magic.

... the never-ending missing-links in the fossil record and the sudden appearances of fully-formed creatures with no evolutionary history.

All of which exist only in your imagination.

The theory of evolution has to explain these problems away with yet more theory - punctuated equilibrium, for example.

And?

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

That is exactly what I've thought through.

So what is the point of this thread? You have expended thirty some pages on a point of exactly no consequence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:42 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 499 of 555 (850770)
04-14-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:59 AM


I don't recall denying that. Please point out where I did.

Okay, then you agree that the theory of evolution is useful, yes?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:59 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:47 AM edge has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4560
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 500 of 555 (850771)
04-14-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:55 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
The name of this site is "Evolution verses Creation". Are you trying to tell me the "Creation" part is strictly scientific?

Parts of this site are strictly and explicitly scientific, parts are explicitly non-scientific. Click "forums" at the top of the window and note the grouping.

Duh.

Somewhere around here there's an explicit statement of the differences between the groups, but I can't find it r now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4560
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 501 of 555 (850772)
04-14-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:55 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dupe. .

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 502 of 555 (850774)
04-14-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:45 AM


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.

So, no real point to this thread then.

UCA is not useful to you so it is not useful to you. That makes sense.

What will be your next revelation?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 503 of 555 (850803)
04-14-2019 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:45 AM


Dredge writes:

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.


That's a distinction without a difference. You don't get to define "practical' any more than you get to define "useful". You can't just claim a use is not a practical use.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 504 of 555 (850819)
04-14-2019 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:55 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Oh you think you manipulation of language is a victory for you. Alas, all it does is further expose that you have no argument. Nothing but a 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 495 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:55 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 505 of 555 (850820)
04-14-2019 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Dredge
04-14-2019 3:37 AM


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

Then this thread needs to be closed. You admit you are not discussing science. If you want to continue this discussion it needs to move to the faith forums, it does not belong in the science forums, because no matter how much science is presented you will just dismiss because of your religious beliefs. In other words you are just trolling.

Admin - do you not think this thread should be closed since Dredge admits all he has is a faith argument?


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 491 by Dredge, posted 04-14-2019 3:37 AM Dredge has not yet responded

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


Message 506 of 555 (850826)
04-15-2019 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by RAZD
04-07-2019 8:19 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
RAZD writes:

Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability

It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.


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 507 by vimesey, posted 04-15-2019 3:50 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 508 by edge, posted 04-15-2019 8:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 509 by ringo, posted 04-15-2019 12:03 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 510 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-15-2019 12:31 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 511 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2019 12:36 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 945
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 507 of 555 (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

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 508 of 555 (850829)
04-15-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

Except that it isn't ...

But the modern theory of evolution predicts that there will be explainable gaps in the fossil record.


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

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


Message 509 of 555 (850833)
04-15-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Dredge writes:

PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record.


You can predict that something will be unexplainable just like you can predict that mankind will never fly - but then it happens; the prediction was wrong.

That isn't the same as ToE predicting that the gaps will be explained. When a gap is filled in - and it happens every day - you can't unfill it.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

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

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(1)
Message 510 of 555 (850835)
04-15-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dredge
04-15-2019 1:47 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Dredge writes:

RAZD writes:

Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability


It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

So, what is your definition of your theory of "Progressive Creation?"

Is there a formal theory that is published somewhere or are you just making it up as you go along?

Is there a scientific publication that lays out all the particulars of the "theory" or are you the only adherent?

How does PC determine that any gaps in the fossil record are inexplicable by science?

Dredge writes:

This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable?

Is your prediction that gaps in the fossil record can never be scientifically explained? If so, how specifically could you confirm that prediction?

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


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 506 by Dredge, posted 04-15-2019 1:47 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
353637Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019