|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Really? Haven't you ever heard rhis: "Evolution is the unifying theory of biology"! Where have you been? I have never thought UCA was a "unifying concept" or a fact or essential scientific information Really? You continue to mistakenly think UCA and the Theory of Evolution are the same thing. No matter how many time you try this you are wrong.
Dredge writes: So most biologist believe biology can do without the theory of evolution? Ya coulda fooled me! LIttle do they know that ToE is just a useless story and that biologists really can do without it. You really are confused.
Dredge writes: Biologists haven't been brainwashed by ToE ... that's so funny! We agree. I also think it's funny that biologists haven't been brainwashed by the ToE.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Okay, so when you said "Someone sees value in what we are learning", you were referring to discoveries in genetics? Golly gee, no kidding? and I did not say anything about UCA or claim any value Yep.
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
It is really? In that case, please explain which observable fact or principle of biology would not exist without the theory of evolution? Rare is the creationist who realizes that this is creationist bullshit What? You are so confused. Observable facts and principals of biology is what the Theory of Evolution is based on. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Nice try, but no cigar - evolution doesn't rule out the existence of God. Well, one benefit is it sure makes you insecure. And there we have it, the only reason for your pathetic attempt here is because you clearly believe it really does rule out the existence of your god. Your insecurity is showing. I think I'm done. Your redundancy is pointless. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
1. Straw man.
Just following your line of reasoning.
2. When a theoretical biologist comes up with something important to say (as opposed to useless pseudo-scientific stories), wake me up.
Important to you? You jest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What?
That was a question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I'm simply asking if anyone can give me an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. It looks like you've got nothing to offer.
So, I have nothing to offer regarding your pointless question. Sue me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The "theory of evolution that explains those fossils"?
The fossil record, yes.
There is no such thing as science is incapable of explaining the fossil record.
According to whom? And if you are talking about explaining the fossil record to you ... well, that would be hopeless in any case. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
YET ANOTHER God-phobic, mouth-foaming rant I hope you weren't expecting otherwise.
after which I think I can safely assume that you can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory I recall Tanypteryx saying something nice I would like to mimic. The best use of the Theory of Evolution is seeing how pissed off you get.
... a bitter pill for you to swallow. Yes, it is, realizing so many people can be so intellectually challenged as to believe the crazy carpola you spout. I was hoping for better from my species. Bitter pill, indeed.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God. I doubt if ToE reflects reality as, for starters, it does a very poor job of explaining the many gaps, distinct lack of transitiionals and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record.
I see, so all this huffing and puffing about UCA is utterly irrelevant as the actual problem you have is your inability to accept the established scientific theory that predicts it (or something like it).Let me guess, it contradicts your religious beliefs? it need have no practical value at all to be never-the-less true.
I agree.
Knowledge has no obligation to be practiical.
But knowledge is obliged to be demonstrably factual. Therefore a mere theory is not knowledge, as scientific theories come and go, as you well know.The fossil record is knowledge, but the theory of evolution that attempts to explain the fossil record is not knowledge. And a belief, no matter how strongly held, is not necessarily knowledge. You may be 110% convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, but that doesn't qualify it as knowledge, as no one can demonstrate that it is the truth. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Dredge writes: Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God As I said, nothing contradicts the possible existence of god. But that wasn't the question I asked. This was what I asked. Why are you evading the question? “Let me guess, it contradicts your religious beliefs?“
But knowledge is obliged to be demonstrably factual. Therefore a mere theory is not knowledge, as scientific theories come and go, as you well know. This is a demonstration of total ignorance about what a scientific theory is and does. A scientific theory is not an idea, a hunch and an hoc explanation, it's a expanation of all known facts. As such, it's status is higher than pure facts. The ToE has stood for 150 years. Not only is it the best explanation of the facts, it's the only naturalistic explanation of them. I have also given you practical uses for it. Which, of course, you've also ducked.
The fossil record is knowledge, but the theory of evolution that attempts to explain the fossil record is not knowledge. Liar, liar pants on fire!
And a belief, no matter how strongly held, is not necessarily knowledge. For once you got something right.
You may be 110% convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA, but that doesn't qualify it as knowledge, as no one can demonstrate that it is the truth. What's really, really odd is that as far as I know, no-one believes 100% that all life on earth evolved from a UCA nor cares much. It's simply one possible prediction of the ToE. It could have done; equally life could have evolved from more than a single source and/or merged, interbred, gone exinct etc etc. We don't know and probably will never know. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. You've built a straw man that no one gives a damn about anyway. Your beef is with the ToE itself and it's only for religious reasons isn't it?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: As it happens a 5 second google and google scholar search produces thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution. Here's the first that popped up .... AbstractEvolutionary principles are now routinely incorporated into medicine and agriculture. Examples include the design of treatments that slow the evolution of resistance by weeds, pests, and pathogens, and the design of breeding programs that maximize crop yield or quality. Evolutionary principles are also increasingly incorporated into conservation biology, natural resource management, and environmental science. Examples include the protection of small and isolated populations from inbreeding depression, the identification of key traits involved in adaptation to climate change, the design of harvesting regimes that minimize unwanted life-history evolution, and the setting of conservation priorities based on populations, species, or communities that harbor the greatest evolutionary diversity and potential. The adoption of evolutionary principles has proceeded somewhat independently in these different fields, even though the underlying fundamental concepts are the same. We explore these fundamental concepts under four main themes: variation, selection, connectivity, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems. Er, no ... you're wrong - a google search does not produce "thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution." In fact, the number is ZERO. Take the quotes you supplied, for example: NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES". But like any good brainwashed evolutionist, you probably think "evolutionary principles" and "evolutionary theory" are the same thing. In which case you'd be wrong again, because if you opened your eyes a little and thought about it a little deeper you'd realize that any practically useful "evolutionary principle" exists REGARDLESS of the theory of evolution. For example, consider the following two "evolutionary principles" that have proven useful in applied biology:1.. Natural selection. 2. Benefical mutations are passed from parent to offspring, which may lead to changes in gene frequency within a population. These two principles describe observable, demonstrable, repeatable facts and therefore the theory of evolution (ie, Darwin's concept of UCA) has contributed absolutely nothing to their existence. These two principles (ie, facts) exist and hold true for everyone - regardless of whether they accept the theory of evolution or not. They hold true and exist even for YECs. These principles would exist if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution. The moral of the story is, whenever you are reading scientific literature and come across any "evolutionary principle" that has proven useful in applied science, remember that it is simply a principle of biology, and doesn't equate to or owe its existence to "evolutionary theory". These principles of biology have been misleadingly and ubiquitously dubbed "evolutionary principles" by the scientific community because it believes the fantasy that "evolution is the unifying theory of all biology". These deluded Darwinist fanatics actually believe that the principles of biological science need the theory of evolution! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Dredge writes: NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES". My word you're getting desperate. The principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution; they're not some seperate thing dissociated from it. And of course, there are thousands of result for practical uses of evolution. For god's sake this is not an obscure area of work. Applications of evolution - Wikipedia Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Er, no ... you're wrong - a google search does not produce "thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution." In fact, the number is ZERO. Take the quotes you supplied, for example: NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES".
So, let me get this straight. You don't think that the theory of evolution was useful in developing various 'principles of evolution', which ARE useful. Is that correct? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God.
I think you've repeated this a few times now.
I doubt if ToE reflects reality ...
You doubt the ToE? Well, that changes everything! Why didn't you say so in the first place? Where do I sign up? What was all this nonsense about 'no practical purpose in practical biology for the UCA'? Why the smokescreen?
... as, for starters, it does a very poor job of explaining the many gaps, ...
You got this straight from your favorite YEC websites, yes?
... distinct lack of transitiionals ...
Despite the documentation of hundreds of transitional fossils...
... and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record.
Only to a YEC can millions of years be 'sudden'. So, it all comes back to the tired old YEC mantras despite your pseudo-intellectual argument about usefulness and practicality of the UCA. Nothing new under the YEC sun. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Only to a YEC can millions of years be 'sudden'. I had a friend at UT Austin, geology prof, has what he calls his "geologist's watch" on his desk. It's one of those snow-globe-type things filled with sand, mud and a goodly amount of small green plastic pieces of fern leafs. The trick is the stuff is all weighted to fall into layers with the green stuff in the middle. So he shakes it up sets it down and announces that when the layer of green turns into oil it's time for lunch. Geologist can't tell time either. That is his explanation for why he and others in the field consider the Cambrian explosion as a mere 10-30 million year "overnight" event. That's where Dredge, or rather as you point out, his favorite YEC websites, get this "sudden appearances" tripe. Yep. It's all the geologists' fault. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Dredge writes: It's got nothing to do with "Typicial creationist BS". I simply asked you to provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory, but you repllied with a completely irrelevant, anti-theist rant. In other words, you've got nothing. Therefore you would agree with me that evolutionary theory has provided no practical uses at all in applied science ... no? The practical use for the theory of evolution is in explaining how species changed over time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024