Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 376 of 1385 (850205)
04-03-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by AZPaul3
04-03-2019 3:11 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by AZPaul3, posted 04-03-2019 3:11 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 377 of 1385 (850206)
04-03-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Tangle
04-03-2019 3:33 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2019 3:33 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2019 1:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 381 by ringo, posted 04-03-2019 6:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 378 of 1385 (850209)
04-03-2019 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
04-03-2019 1:25 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 7:35 PM Tangle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 379 of 1385 (850211)
04-03-2019 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Dredge
04-02-2019 1:46 AM


Dredge writes:
I have no idea which practical uses you're referring to - I seem to have missed those posts!
Conveniently, yes.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 1:46 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 1:51 AM ringo has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 380 of 1385 (850214)
04-03-2019 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Dredge
04-02-2019 3:20 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
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:
The Piltdown Man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed, also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Dredge, posted 04-02-2019 3:20 AM Dredge has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 381 of 1385 (850216)
04-03-2019 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
04-03-2019 1:25 PM


Faith writes:
You have an obligation to present the findings in each of those articles if you expect me to take any of it seriously.
Nobody expects you to take reality seriously.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 7:35 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 382 of 1385 (850218)
04-03-2019 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Tangle
04-03-2019 1:43 PM


Empty denials are SOOOOO wearisome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2019 1:43 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-03-2019 9:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 383 of 1385 (850219)
04-03-2019 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by ringo
04-03-2019 6:15 PM


So are silly putdowns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by ringo, posted 04-03-2019 6:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by ringo, posted 04-04-2019 11:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4597
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


(1)
Message 384 of 1385 (850223)
04-03-2019 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Faith
04-03-2019 7:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 04-03-2019 7:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 385 of 1385 (850226)
04-04-2019 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by ringo
04-03-2019 3:22 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 04-03-2019 3:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Stile, posted 04-04-2019 11:31 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 394 by ringo, posted 04-04-2019 11:46 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 386 of 1385 (850227)
04-04-2019 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by dwise1
04-03-2019 2:20 AM


Re: Pills
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2019 2:20 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:49 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 387 of 1385 (850228)
04-04-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-02-2019 1:57 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 3:30 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 391 by edge, posted 04-04-2019 10:38 AM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 388 of 1385 (850229)
04-04-2019 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Dredge
04-04-2019 2:52 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 2:52 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-04-2019 8:37 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 404 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 422 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2019 12:32 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 389 of 1385 (850230)
04-04-2019 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-02-2019 1:57 PM


Faith writes:
evolutionary principles
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-02-2019 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 4:16 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 397 by Dogmafood, posted 04-04-2019 8:48 PM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 390 of 1385 (850232)
04-04-2019 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Dredge
04-04-2019 3:36 AM


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:
Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 3:36 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:38 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024