|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello Faith. Some definitions of ToE include no more than principles of microevolution - ie, factual stuff that science has found many practical uses for. On the other hand, other definitions of ToE add the theory/conclusion that life evolved from UCA. The stuff about evolving from UCA is what I contend is useless to applied science.
Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable facts - not theories or conclusions or opinions or beliefs or atheist folklore. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
"Knowledge" is not the same as a practical use in applied science. I know that the sky is blue, but I can't think of a practical use in applied science for that knowledge.
Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Only demonstrable facts qualify as knowledge - this precludes theories, opinions, conclusions, beliefs and atheist folklore. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Research in evolutionary biology is not a practical use in applied science. S. J. Gould, for example, devoted his career to research in evolutionary biology and he contributed absolutely nothing of any practical use to science.
Research may led to a practical use, but research per se is not a practical use. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Sorry, but this is irrelevant to the OP. The uses you cite are not dependent in any way of believing/accepting that life on earth evolved from UCA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
UCA is irrelevant to practical uses of microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Assumptions are the cornerstone of Evolutionism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
How is UCA relevant to protein folding?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I know that the sky is blue, but I can't think of a practical use in applied science for that knowledge. Do you know why it's blue? Understanding how light and elements in the atmosphere interact might have practical applications in spectrographic chemical analysis, but you are a purist and the sole arbiter of what is practical in applied science, or any science it seems. I'm just thankful I don't have to bother trying to teach you anything, because you already know everything you want to.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Speaking of which, geologists make use of the fossil record in oil and gas exploration. However, this use doesn't require accepting the evolutionary interpretation of said fossil record. A progressive creationist like me could use the fossil record just as proficiently. In fact, no explanation for the fossil record is required in order to make use of it in this way.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Dredge writes: Knowledge" is not the same as a practical use in applied science. Knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't need a practical use. Why do you care about this particular piece of knowledge and not others?
Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Only demonstrable facts qualify as knowledge - this precludes theories, opinions, conclusions, beliefs and atheist folklore. Sorry Chuck, religiously motivated people don't get to decide what is or isn't knowledge in science.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
In other words, you can't give me an example of a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from UCA. So, ok, no one here can meet your unreasonable requirements of an example. So what? Do we have to care about your errant opinions?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 661 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
That's what I said. But it doesn't need a practical use to be true. This doesn't sound like a practical use for UCA.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 417 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Furthermore, a story about life on earth evolving from UCA doesn't qualify as knowledge. Only demonstrable facts qualify as knowledge - this precludes theories, opinions, conclusions, beliefs and atheist folklore.
That bans all of science from the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Sorry, but your analogy makes no sense at all to my fragile, eggshell mind. Unlike useless stories about UCA, transistors are eminently useful in a practical sense and also have also proven useful in applied science.
Dredge writes:
I completely agree. Just like how the whole transistor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of electronic devices. It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory. Well, within evolutionary theory, it would be a pretty cool thing to narrow down and figure out.
Er, try reading the OP again. Which part of it asks for uses "within evolutionary theory"? I'm almost certain the OP is confined to only practical uses in applied science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Porkncheeese writes: Hey Dredge. Fellow Aussie here.I know exactly what you are saying mate. Funny thing is no one else does... Hehehe... G'day to my fellow Australian! My experience is that most evolutionists are very allergic to the idea that their beloved all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing beliefs about UCA appear to be completely useless in any practical sense and really amount to a scientific irrelevance. The only "use" said beliefs have is to make all those atheists out there feel more secure about their materialistic philosophy. Tales about UCA are like cozy bedtime stories for the godless. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024