|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Je ne sais pas. Non lo so.
Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before? You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post.
???
First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse.
1. Wrong. Theoretical science can prove invaluable.2. Straw man. Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness.
Er, no - I can't find "my personal criteria" in the OP. The OP actually asks for usefulness according to applied science.
Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences.
1. Irrelevant to the post. 2. I am not a YEC and I have never mentioned ID. 3. YEC/ID are religious beliefs - you want me to provide practical scientific applications for religious beliefs?
No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.
Let me guess ... here you were thinking that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of your cherished belief in UCA, but it seems that nothing in all of applied science depends on your UCA belief system - and you find this hard to accept? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Yes. But it's irrelevant to my point and do you really want to discuss something we all learnt about in highschool?
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.
You're digressing. I said I can't think of a practical use for knowing that the sky is blue - can you? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
How do the confines of applied science amount to "unreasonable requirements". Applied science is the most important sphere of science and it is only sphere of science that really matters. No one reduced suffering or cured disease or fed hungry mouths with a theory, esp not one of the most useless theories ever - UCA.
So, ok, no one here can meet your unreasonable requirements of an example. Do we have to care about your errant opinions?
I can answer your question, as I don't know what you mean by "your errant opinions". Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
qs writes:
I agree.
Knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't need a practical use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
I know. it doesn't need a practical use to be true Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
Really? I was under the impression "science" actually includes "applied science".
That bans all of science from the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9581 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Dredge writes: I agree. So what's your beef? UCA is simply a derived conclusion of the ToE, it's just an interesting spin-off of the theory, it doesn't need a practical use and it's not something anybody spends any time on. And, by-the-way, it has nothing at all to do with atheism.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Unlike useless stories about UCA, transistors are eminently useful in a practical sense and also have also proven useful in applied science. 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."But, who cares? That's not where UCA is supposed to be useful. UCA is supposed to be useful within the realm of evolutionary theory. And it is. Very useful.Just as transistors are only useful within the realm of electronic devices. Very useful. The point is that your limit of "outside the realm of evolutionary theory" is a silly, ridiculous limit - and it only makes you look foolish.As foolish as someone running around saying "Hey! Transistors are USELESS outside electronic devices! Why are you all using transistors!?? They're USELESS!!!" Sure. Useless. Whatever you say, buddy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 669 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Then why are you wasting time with this thread? ringo writes:
I know. it doesn't need a practical use to be trueAnd our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
He's a creationist. He doesn't have any good arguments, but he doesn't want to stop arguing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
He's a creationist. He doesn't have any good arguments, but he doesn't want to stop arguing. And he's pissed that all those horrible atheists don't believe in his imaginary god.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
How do the confines of applied science amount to "unreasonable requirements". As Stile said, you're taking UCA outside the discipline it is intended to inform and insisting that since it has marginal to no utility in traffic control systems (an applied science) it has no utility anywhere. Typical religious logic.
No one reduced suffering or cured disease or fed hungry mouths with a theory, esp not one of the most useless theories ever - UCA. Now you're talking about your religion. Useless to society, harmful to critical thinking and damn deadly to living things everywhere. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
1. Wrong. Theoretical science can prove invaluable.
So, something value may be of no use?
2. Straw man.
Okay, then, what is your point?
Er, no - I can't find "my personal criteria" in the OP. The OP actually asks for usefulness according to applied science.
Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes? Again, I don't see the reason for you to make this point.
1. Irrelevant to the post.
Once again, in this case, I see no reason for you to make the point in the OP. You are welcome to your opinion but it is without effect.
2. I am not a YEC and I have never mentioned ID. 3. YEC/ID are religious beliefs - you want me to provide practical scientific applications for religious beliefs? 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. To compound that, it is not MY belief, nor do I cherish it. Your insinuations tell me that you have a motive for your OP. Why not just come out and say it?
... but it seems that nothing in all of applied science depends on your UCA belief system - and you find this hard to accept?
What is there to accept? Your statement is so watered down that anyone could agree with it. It is your opinion that common ancestry has no direct practical application in "applied science". So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined:
|
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. (When it comes to animal research, we can rule out the idea of most creationists having any ethical concerns, so I will lay that issue aside) 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
I put this into google:
disease research mice dna humans (computer won't let me type words above "I put this into google" or hit "Enter" to drop the line to a lower horizon in message) (I was going to start this message by asking for the creationist understanding of cross-specie applied research relative to diseases)
quote:This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024