|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The development of bacterial resistance also has nothing to do with the ToE, it's the usual variation built into every species, sometimes called "microevolution," or it's a mutation or a deterioration of some sort, but all on the level of microevolution. There is no reason whatever to evoke the ToE to explain anything biological.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have an obligation to present the findings in each of those articles if you expect me to take any of it seriously. However, just from the titles there's no reason to think most of it has anything to do with the ToE anyway, just the usual "microevolution."
Oh yes what I said is true. Nothing you've said answers any of it. And again you merely assert that dredge was given the examples. If you showed them to me I missed it, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Faith writes: You have an obligation to present the findings in each of those articles No I don't, You asked for the evidence, there it is.
if you expect me to take any of it seriously. You have to be kidding...
However, just from the titles there's no reason to think most of it has anything to do with the ToE anyway, Wow, you read the titles! That's more rigorous than usual.
just the usual "microevolution." Microevolution *is* evolution as described by the ToE.
Oh yes what I said is true. Nothing you've said answers any of it. Any you knew that without reading any of it...
And again you merely assert that dredge was given the examples. Jesus woman, do you think I'd lie about it? I'm not a sodding creationist. The first of several times I give him the evidence was in post 167. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Conveniently, yes. I have no idea which practical uses you're referring to - I seem to have missed those posts!And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
It took nearly 40 years for scientists to wake up to {the Piltdown hoax}? How embarrassement! The main reason why it had taken 40 years to get around to applying the fluorine dating technique to the "fossils" was that it was a new technique that had just been developed. To explain it in terms simple enough for even you to understand, you cannot use any kind of procedure, nor anything for that matter, before it exists. Basically, you're doing the same stupid thing as criticizing Darwin for not using Wikipedia! And yet scientists did expose the hoax and corrected it such that Piltdown Man was never again used by science; the only ones still using it are creationists making false accusations, such as yourself. Contrast that with the multitude of creationist PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) that were soundly refuted decades ago and yet creationists continue to use them unabated and shamelessly. Quelle fromage!
The Piltdown farce demonstrates how credulous and tendencious the scientific community is when it comes to evolution. No, rather it demonstrates cultural bias and nationalism, human failings which should have no place in science. The British national ego chafed at the Homo erectus finds being made in Germany and was repelled by the thought of humans originating in Africa, so their national pride found the idea human origins in England to be very appealing. As Wikipedia reports (https://en.wikipedia.org/...own_Man#Scientific_investigation):
quote: You are also ignoring the early critics of Piltdown. A particular problem was that the find did not fit the patterns of the other hominids being found, especially with the fully developed human cranium. As per Wikipedia: "In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere." It has been pointed out elsewhere that scientists can be susceptible to hoaxes because they are used to working with evidence from Nature and do not expect Nature to be trying to deceive them. It is also in the nature of science to constantly and repeatedly question and test and validate all findings. The purpose of science is learning how nature works.A scientist's own research is based on the research of other scientists, so it's in that scientist's own interest to validate that other research. It is that repeated questioning and testing that exposes mistakes and hoaxes, as we see in the case of the Piltdown hoax. Science self-corrects. In contrast, it is in the nature of creationism to avoid examining its own claims. The purpose of creationism is to promote religious beliefs and to proselytize with convincing sounding claims, even when they are aware that those claims are false. The only test of a creationist claim is in how convincing it sounds. That is why the multitude of mistakes and hoaxes and outright deception in creationism persist and continue to be used for many decades. Not only does creationism fail to self-correct, but it actively preserves its mistakes, hoaxes, and deceptions; that's the nature of the beast.
The scientists who expressed early doubts were probably the creationists. Wrong again. The juxtaposing of such disparate features just didn't look right to many, nor did the circumstances of the find. The strongest criticism came from other paleontologists who were discovering actual hominids and pointing out the obvious, that Piltdown was an aberration that did not fit in with the other hominids. And to point out the obvious to you, creationists would not be working to discover hominids. Creationists played no role in nor made any contribution to exposing this hoax. They never do. Rather scientists did all the work, as is always the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Nobody expects you to take reality seriously. You have an obligation to present the findings in each of those articles if you expect me to take any of it seriously.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Empty denials are SOOOOO wearisome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So are silly putdowns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.8
|
Empty denials are SOOOOO wearisome. So is bullshit. I thought you left.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: |
Is it my imagination or am I noticing a pattern here?
You sometimes make a claim, but when pressed for evidence to back up your claim, you have nothing. Your latest faux claim is that practical uses of the concept of UCA have been presented to me on this thread ... I asked you for evidence of this and you have - surprise, surprise! - nothing. Bizarre, to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: Really? You really have no clue how "super bugs" evolve? Really? Thanks for the lecture, but I've been aware of the theory of antibiotic resistance since high school (ie, for about 45 years). It ain't rocket science. You've jumped the gun, got your wires crossed, barked up the wrong tree and got your panties in a twist over nothing: I was responding to this comment from post 191: "Every pamphlet with antibiotics warns you to finish the whole series. That is evolutionary theory in action." The post says nothing about antibiotic resistance, bit simply refers to the killing of a population of bacteria - in which case, I asked what the mere killing of a population of bacteria has to do with "evolutionary theory". Obviously, if the poster had said "Antibiotic resistance is evolutionary theory in action", then I would have understood what he was talking about.
And you are just yet another fucking creationist idiot Are you now embarrassed by this petulant comment? I would be. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith writes: There are no practical uses for the ToE What is meant by "ToE" seems to be a subjective thing and varies from person to person. For example, Tanypteryx says "The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution" (cf #165). According to this rather odd definition of ToE (apparently, a collection of facts and principles adds up to a scientific theory!), there are certainly practical uses for ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Dredge writes: According to this rather odd definition of ToE (apparently, a collection of facts and principles adds up to a scientific theory!), You're still fighting to misunderstand. Any scientific theory has to explain observed facts. The 'collection of facts' is the data, the theory provides the information to understand them. A room full of unlabelled fossils is data. It tells us very little. When the fossils are ordered in time and in families groups, patterns emerge. When we also have the data on how organisms change according to changing environments, how organisms can be organised into detailed taxonomical categories and (new information these observations from micro-biology confirm them), science can the pull all this information into a general theory that explains it all. That's what science has done over a period of 150 years. At a general level the ToE is a settled piece of science. Only religious zealots think otherwise but they have been incapable of even denting it. The priciples of the ToE are drawn from the theory - common descent, mutability of species, competition, survival of the fittest etc. The UCA is not part of the theory, it's a possible consequence of the principle of common descent. Religionists love picking at definitions because they can't pick at the facts. They think that by mangling the words, the facts will change. There are several ways of defining the ToE; they are all describing the same thing and they're all correct as far as they go. You'd be far better employed trying to understand the theory than quibbling pointessly about your misunderstanding of scientific terms.
there are certainly practical uses for ToE. You're more than a bit daft aren't you?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: |
Faith writes:
1. Some (maybe most) "evolutionary principles" are really just factual principles of biology that are readily observed at the microevolutionary level, the concept of UCA being totally irrelevant to the existent of these factual principles of biology. Therefore, in this sense, it can be argued that some "evolutionary principles" have proven practically useful. evolutionary principles 2. Tangle can't find any articles or papers that describe practical uses for "the theory of evolution" - the best he can come up with is an article describing practical uses for the "evolutionary principles". I contend that one cannot find or google any practical uses for "the theory of evolution" because ToE necessarily includes the concept of UCA - a concept that has no practical use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Dredge writes: Tangle can't find any articles or papers that describe practical uses for "the theory of evolution" - the best he can come up with is an article describing practical uses for the "evolutionary principles". I contend that one cannot find or google any practical uses for "the theory of evolution" because ToE necessarily includes the concept of UCA - a concept that has no practical use. The principles of evolution make up the Theory of Evolution. They are part and parcel of the same thing. THE SAME THING. You've been given many examples of practical uses of the ToE. Here they are again
quote: Applications of evolution - Wikipedia That link gives you links to many other papers, the first of which is the one I've shown you twice now which provides practical scientific example of its use. Did you notice that the first paragraph actually uses the precise words your so hung up on and say never appear? Did you also notice that the wiki is only first result from the google search term practical uses for the theory of evolution There are thousands of others. Impossible though you think it is. CA215: Practical uses of evolution. It would really help if you tried to understand what you disagree with, rather than dick about pretending knowledge. At a basic level the ToE is not hard to understand.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024