|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,258 Year: 6,515/9,624 Month: 93/270 Week: 6/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18591 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
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: In between is a bunch of googling which I wager none of us bothered to really read. This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently ... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 2497 Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined:
|
LarmarkNewAge writes:
It well may, but you're barking up the wrong tree - the OP isn't concerned with support for ToE.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Which is why your "transistor" analogy is lame - a transistor has a practical use; UCA has no practical use ... anywhere. 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." Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
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. Then why are you wasting time with this thread? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
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.
Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
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. 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.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
LarmarkNewAge writes:
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. 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 271 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9573 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1632 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Thank you, that's the end of the discussion then. Common descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, Except the argument shifts to whether theoretical science has a practical use ... Creationists don’t like new information that disrupts their fragile thinking. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9573 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1933 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024