|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. Big deal - transitional fossils could also be the result of progressive creation - a process that can look like an overall process of biological evolution in the fossil record, but isn't.
If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear. Imo, any transition from one genus into another genus is clear evidence of divine intervention (creation) - which means the fossil record contains lots and lots of clear evidence of creation. Evolutions do their darndest to explain the evidence (gaps) away with all manner of far-fetched theories, but a progressive creation model easily explains all those pesky gaps.
Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one. It does. During the Cambrian explosion a vast array of very different creatures appear suddennly without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors, so the fossil record looks more like an orchard of unrelated trees. It appears that Darwin's "tree of life" is a myth and a fig-tree of evolutionary imagination. "the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229 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: |
Faith writes: I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already Thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans strongly suggests there are natural limits to evolution. No empiricial evidence exists that suggests genus-genus evolution (ie, macroevolution) is possible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.5
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: The effects of climate change on natural populations and our domesticated organisms can often be predicted using knowledge of their evolutionary history. Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate. ... none of which requires any knowledge of the theory of evolution. And yet scientists around the world are still using it. Your credibility is kaput.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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 323 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection. I've been trying to think of a decent analogy, to help you out with your misapprehension that LUCA forms part of the theory of evolution. Let's try flight. In simple terms, the theory of flight is that the faster flow of air over the curved upper surface of a wing results in less air pressure than the slower flow of air over the flat(ter) lower surface. This difference in air pressure exerts an upward force on the wing, which when it exceeds gravity, results in the wing rising. There's the theory. Now, it's a not unreasonable inference to draw from the theory that there is an optimum wing design - one which results in greater lift than any other design. (Indeed, there are people spending their working days trying to find ever better wing designs). However, the existence and identification (if it exists) of the optimum wing design is not part of the theory of flight. (For one thing, an optimum design is not, by definition, falsifiable). It's a reasonable inference that one exists, but an optimum wing is not part of the theory. The theory continues to explain how birds and planes fly , and continues to guide the design of better wings, without any need to reference an optimum wing design. And that is how it is with the ToE and LUCA. LUCA is a reasonable inference of the ToE, but it is not part of the theory. (ABE - I'm ignoring the additional complexities presented by flapping wings/ornithopters - hat-tip to Frank Herbert). Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I dare say no theory qualifies as knowledge. That's your problem right there. If you have dismissed the value of any Theory then what are you hoping to gain with this discussion? How can your request possibly be satisfied? As an atheist paraphrasing Ghandi, 'I like your Christ but some of your Christians are full of shit.'
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Why is any evolutionary theory needed to explain the facts pertaining to the action of antibiotics? One ingests a toxin (antibiotic) that kills certain bacteria in one's body - what's that got to do with the theory of evolution?
What happens if you stop taking the antibiotic when the symptoms disappear but you've got plenty of antibiotic left? Hint: the answer begins with "e".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Really? What evolutionary theory is that?
The theory of evolution.
Why is any evolutionary theory needed to explain the facts pertaining to the action of antibiotics? One ingests a toxin (antibiotic) that kills certain bacteria in one's body - what's that got to do with the theory of evolution?
Heh, heh ... Do you think that's all there is to it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Big deal - transitional fossils could also be the result of progressive creation - a process that can look like an overall process of biological evolution in the fossil record, but isn't.
Could be. The problem is that if one believed such an idea, one would look for independent evidence of such 'progressive creation'. If one were a real scientist. Or even if one were simply curious.
Imo, any transition from one genus into another genus is clear evidence of divine intervention (creation) - which means the fossil record contains lots and lots of clear evidence of creation.
I'm sure that is your opinion. Thank you.
Evolutions do their darndest to explain the evidence (gaps) away with all manner of far-fetched theories, but a progressive creation model easily explains all those pesky gaps.
Again, that's a nice opinion on your part. The problem is that you have no evidence. See above.
It does. During the Cambrian explosion a vast array of very different creatures appear suddennly without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors, so the fossil record looks more like an orchard of unrelated trees. It appears that Darwin's "tree of life" is a myth and a fig-tree of evolutionary imagination.
Actually they do appear with precursors in earlier geological periods. I have referred you to this fact before. Do you choose to ignore data?
"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229
" ... as though ..." Interesting choice of words, don't you think? What does Dawkins go on to say? Does he then reject the theory of evolution? But it is interesting that you find Dawkins to be such a dependable expert on evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
I said that the common ancestor is "based on observation", not that it has been observed. Similarly, the electron is based on observation, even if there are no fossils of it.
ringo writes:
If so, where was this common ancestor observed and what name did they give it? And please provide an photo of its fossil remains. The common ancestor is based on observation. Dredge writes:
No. The ToE is about how one species evolves into another. The common ancestor is not a necessary part of the ToE. ToE has two parts:1. All organisms on earth are connected and related to each other, since they all descended from a common ancestor. 2. All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection (and other mechanisms, which could collectively be called, "the evolutionary process"). And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
"Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate." Message 25 What is your evidence that they "do use it"? If you dispute that statement, it's up to you to show that it's wrong.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229
"Since Darwin's time, the fossil history of life on Earth has been pushed back to 3.5 billion years before the present. Most of these fossils are microscopic bacteria and algae. However, in the latest Proterozoic ” a time period now called the Ediacaran, or the Vendian, and lasting from about 635 to 542 million years ago* ” macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations." The Ediacaran Period. The first Ediacaran fossils were discovered in 1946. I don't know offhand what was known in 1987, but it seems Dawkins was oversimplifying. There's certainly been a lot more learned since 1987. The mainstream explanation is that Ediacaran organisms were soft-bodied and extremely unlikely to fossilize. Many Cambrian organisms developed hard body parts in a geologically short time frame, and were much more likely to fossilize.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution:
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
This DNA "tree of life" sounds like it might involve Darwin's "tree of life" and his theory of evolution - but it doesn't; in fact, no knowledge of the theory of evoluiton is needed in order to trace and construct a useful phylogentic tree of DNA common ancestry. And again you have it backwards: the DNA information is data, fact, and the fact is that the pattern derived from it is consistent with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution means that it validates the theory. This is a test of the theory, and it passed: there is no reason for this DNA pattern to show up unless the theory is valid. The tree of life from the DNA information also happens to match the one derived from morphological analysis of fossils, again something that should happen if the Theory of Evolution is valid. This too is a test of the theory, and it passed: there is no reason for this matching pattern to show up unless the theory is valid.
Such "trees" are confined to the level of genus ... What constrains this from happening beyond the level of genera: please layout the constraints in detail and show evidence for your assertion ... and tell me if are you using your false definition of "genus" (which is actually species by scientific technical definition) or the actual scientific technical definition for genera?
... and are really not much different to a family tree that humans use to trace their ancestors. Believe it or not, there are many such family trees of life recorded in the Bible and none of the authors knew about the theory of evolution! Family genealogy is just a small portion of the tree of life, all within one particular species, and developing small sections like this does not refute or even begin to challenge the rest of the tree of life construction. In fact it reinforces it by demonstrating the process is valid at small levels, so again this validates the tree of life process for all species. To challenge the theory you need to provide an example where the process does not result in the predicted pattern of nested hierarchies.
There is no reason why a YEC biologist (ie, someone who denies the theory of evolution and the concept LUCA) could not trace and contruct a DNA 'tree of life'. Indeed he could, because that is what the evidence (data, fact, observation) shows. What he would have, however is a test of two different concepts:
This has been done by some YEC (pseudo)"scientists" ... where they can only get result (1) by ignoring evidence of earlier common ancestry, the age of the earth, and the lack of evidence for a flood with the subsequent bottleneck effect occurring simultaneously on all branches of life. This does not occur with an unbiased evaluation of all the evidence, as done by secular scientists with no religious preconceptions . IE concept (1) is falsified and concept (2) is validated by the evidence when all the evidence is used.
This leads to the concept of universal common ancestor Wow, that's quite a leap of faith ... from "variations within a genus" to "all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor"! Nope, it is just following the concept of descent from common ancestor breeding populations to the logical conclusion:
If (D) and (E) are related via common ancestor (C), and (H) and (I) are related by common ancestor (G) and (F) is related to (C) by common ancestor (B), it is logical that there exists a population (A) that is a common ancestor to (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) and (I). If evidence of population (A) exists at the proper place in the spacial-temporal matrix, then this conclusion is validated as tentatively true because this is the best known explanation for the evidence (until a better explanation is provided).
1. It is like asking if there are any practical uses for the theory of evolution - the answer appears to be "NO". 2. ... except the theory of evolution isn't "knowledge". I dare say no theory qualifies as knowledge. You could, but that would be nonsense, as there's nothing remotely "practical" about a mere idea. These are just your opinions, having ignored the evidence given for the use of knowledge, and as such they are eminently ignore-able until you provide actual objective empirical evidence of a wisp of validity. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
What do you expect? I've often stated on this site that I have a fragile, eggshell mind. I got that description from a Door's song called Peace Frog - "Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile, eggshell mind."
I see I'm talking to a child.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: The principles of evolution are derived from the theory. I can't see how this supports your argument. One presumes that since "the principles of evolution are derived from the theory (of evolution)", then the "principles of evolution" are not the same as the "theory of evolution". Yet you claim that the practical uses of the "principles of evolution" (in the quote in post 183) are also practical uses for the "theory of evolution".So, what are you trying to tell me? ... that the principles DERIVED from a theory are THE SAME as the theory? 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