Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
623 online now:
(623 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,728 Year: 21,764/19,786 Month: 327/1,834 Week: 327/315 Day: 5/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13344
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 106 of 1371 (849439)
03-10-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by LamarkNewAge
03-09-2019 7:45 PM


Re: I am not sure what the argument would be from a creationist.
LNA writes:

I was going to start this message by asking for the creationist understanding of cross-specie applied research relative to diseases...

OK...but you conclude the message with this:

LNA writes:

This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently ...

In between is a bunch of googling which I wager none of us bothered to really read.

Any of us can go to google to find an answer we wish to look up. It appears that you simply wanted to stir up a topic with creationists. If so, you yourself need to use your own thoughts rather than pave the way to discussion with google.
Forum Guidelines clearly state: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Comments?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-09-2019 7:45 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1576
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 107 of 1371 (849461)
03-10-2019 8:55 PM


I was asking for the (ex post facto) Creationism Theory for the research.
I think it is obvious that the UCA "macro-evolutionary" theory can easily offer the mice disease research as powerful (?) support for the theory.

I want the creationist argument.

I fully expect some lame, "God was efficient, so he made us mammals with similar DNA", type of response.

(And I expected this disease research issue to have already been brought up. I suspect it was not brought up because almost everybody gave up - from the start - on the hope for an actual argument from creationists.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:05 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 108 of 1371 (849517)
03-13-2019 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by LamarkNewAge
03-10-2019 8:55 PM


Re: I was asking for the (ex post facto) Creationism Theory for the research.
LarmarkNewAge writes:

I think it is obvious that the UCA "macro-evolutionary" theory can easily offer the mice disease research as powerful (?) support for the theory.


It well may, but you're barking up the wrong tree - the OP isn't concerned with support for ToE.

I want the creationist argument.

In that case, you're in the wrong thread

I fully expect some lame, "God was efficient, so he made us mammals with similar DNA", type of response

No wonder you find creationist explanations "lame" - you expect a scientific explanation for a religious belief!
Nevertheless, here is another "lame" explanation based on a progressive creation model: The Bible says God used inanimate matter to make the first creatures; He then used the DNA (inanimate matter again) from these early creatures to make subsequent (and genetically related) creatures ... and so on for millions of years until we get to the age of man. This process explains why creation looks like evolution (with gaps) and why mice and humans share genetic similarities.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-10-2019 8:55 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 109 of 1371 (849518)
03-13-2019 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Stile
03-08-2019 9:17 AM


Stile writes:

Transistors are only "eminently useful in a practical sense and have also proven useful in applied science" within the realm of electronic devices.
Go ahead, try it.
Can you think of any usefulness of a transistor at all outside of electronics?
That's what you're doing with "useless stories of UCA."
Sure - they may very well be useless "outside the realm of evolutionary theory."


Which is why your "transistor" analogy is lame - a transistor has a practical use; UCA has no practical use ... anywhere.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Stile, posted 03-08-2019 9:17 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Stile, posted 03-13-2019 8:24 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 110 of 1371 (849519)
03-13-2019 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
03-08-2019 10:44 AM


ringo writes:

Then why are you wasting time with this thread?


I was wondering if anyone could provide an example of use for UCA, but it's becoming increasingly clear there are none. Which makes the theory of evolution the scientific equivalent of a blank bullet - it makes a lot of noise and smoke and attracts a lot of attention, but it doesn't actually do anything.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 03-08-2019 10:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 03-13-2019 3:17 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 111 of 1371 (849520)
03-13-2019 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by edge
03-09-2019 5:17 PM


edge writes:

Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes?


Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 03-09-2019 5:17 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by JonF, posted 03-13-2019 9:31 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2019 12:02 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 121 by edge, posted 03-13-2019 2:42 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 112 of 1371 (849521)
03-13-2019 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by edge
03-09-2019 5:17 PM


edge writes:

Dredge writes:


Let me guess ... here you were thinking that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of your cherished belief in UCA

Then you guess wrongly. I am not a biologist and that is not my first impression of the argument.


My comment was a play on Theodore Dobzhansky's line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has become a kind of mantra in biological science and is the title of his famous essay. Upon reading said essay, one realizes that what Dobzhansky meant by "evolution" was the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record, which of course includes the concept of UCA.
But Dobzhansky was deluded and wrong, for there is nothing in all of applied biology (ie, the only form of biology that matters) that depends on the concept/theory/conclusion of UCA or even human evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 03-09-2019 5:17 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by edge, posted 03-13-2019 2:37 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 113 of 1371 (849522)
03-13-2019 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by LamarkNewAge
03-09-2019 7:20 PM


Re: Don't creationists have a universal common ancestor too?
LarmarkNewAge writes:

The sames creationists say there was divergence and "evolution".
The same creationists accept DNA as real.
Genetic understanding is relevant to deciding which people are more likely to suffer from whatever type of disease.
Genetic understanding is also relevant to getting the best treatment.

Now, the question:
The question is whether "macro" evolutionary understanding of DNA comparisons can help clue a scientist in on fruitful areas of disease research, and in a way that creationists might be inclined to avoid.
Look at the issue of using animal research to help find cures to human diseases.
Whales get HIV, I believe. Rats and Chimps have some useful "disease research" functions.
Does the macro-evolutionary understanding cause more and better research to necessarily happen?


1. Please be advised that "research" and even "better research" is not a practical use. Research can and often does lead to a practical use, but until it does, research is practically useless.

2. You seem to be conflating useful facts (which can lead to useful applications) with an irrelevant and useless theory (which never leads to useful applications).
To illustrate my point, please consider this: The genetic similarities between humans and mice (ie, a useful fact) exist regardless of any theory that attempts to explain why said genetic similarities exist. One doesn't any explanatory theory at all for said genetic similarities in order for said genetic similarities to exist and to be practically useful.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-09-2019 7:20 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by JonF, posted 03-13-2019 9:48 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 114 of 1371 (849524)
03-13-2019 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:17 AM


Dredge writes:

Which is why your "transistor" analogy is lame - a transistor has a practical use; UCA has no practical use ... anywhere.

Well, except for making sense of evolution, within evolutionary theory - for biologists to do all the practical work they do in all of biology.
Sort of how transistors are used in all of electronic devices.

But, if you want to call that "none" that's up to you and voices in your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:17 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:09 AM Stile has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5597
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 115 of 1371 (849525)
03-13-2019 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:29 AM


Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

Common descent has nothing to do with imaginary beings or alleged aliens. The fact that you think you know what aliens look like says a lot about your mental stability and capability.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:18 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5597
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 116 of 1371 (849526)
03-13-2019 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:52 AM


Re: Don't creationists have a universal common ancestor too?
. Please be advised that "research" and even "better research" is not a practical use. Research can and often does lead to a practical use, but until it does, research is practically useless.

It's nice that you acknowledge that the practicality can't be known when the research is done.

You seem to be conflating useful facts (which can lead to useful applications) with an irrelevant and useless theory (which never leads to useful applications).

Prove that. I thought you realized that you generally cannot prove a no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7176
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 117 of 1371 (849527)
03-13-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:29 AM


Dredge writes:

Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes,

Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then.

but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.

Don't be silly.


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 111 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 03-13-2019 1:45 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 127 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:26 AM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 118 of 1371 (849529)
03-13-2019 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tangle
03-13-2019 12:02 PM


Dredge writes:

Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes,


Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then.

Except the argument shifts to whether theoretical science has a practical use ...

Creationists don’t like new information that disrupts their fragile thinking.

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 117 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2019 12:02 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2019 1:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7176
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(4)
Message 119 of 1371 (849530)
03-13-2019 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
03-13-2019 1:45 PM


RAZD writes:

Except the argument shifts to whether theoretical science has a practical use ...

Yeh, well, as you know, there are very good answers to that but I really don't give a poo, if things had to have direct practical value to be valuable, we'd have no art, no music and, ironically enough, no religion.

Creationists don’t like new information that disrupts their fragile thinking.

Yes, it must be very irritating for them. They'd better get used to it, it ain't going away and it's going to get worse (for them).


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 118 by RAZD, posted 03-13-2019 1:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 120 of 1371 (849531)
03-13-2019 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dredge
03-13-2019 12:40 AM


My comment was a play on Theodore Dobzhansky's line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has become a kind of mantra in biological science and is the title of his famous essay.

Then you are not talking about me. I have no such mantra.

Upon reading said essay, one realizes that what Dobzhansky meant by "evolution" was the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record, which of course includes the concept of UCA.

And?

But Dobzhansky was deluded and wrong, for there is nothing in all of applied biology (ie, the only form of biology that matters) that depends on the concept/theory/conclusion of UCA or even human evolution.

Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:40 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dredge, posted 03-15-2019 12:31 AM edge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019