Please cite a scientific paper or article that specifically describes a practical use for "the theory of evolution".

Exactly. It seems most students of biology have been indoctrinated to believe mendacious nonsense like "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and "Evolution is the unifying theory of all biology." They seem to think if we don't believe all life on earth evolved from microbes, the science of biology will be rendered useless.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Can you show what difference there is between 'progressive creation' and evolution please.

Sure, but the topic originator is confused, he does not understand what the UCA or the ToE is[/qs] Here is my understanding of ToE, as described by Berkeley Universtiy:"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene ” or more precisely and technically, allele ” frequency in a population from one generation to the next) AND LARGE-SCALE EVOLUTION (the descent of different species from A COMMON ANCESTOR over many generations) ... The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that ALL LIFE ON EARTH SHARES A COMMON ANCESTOR" - evolution.berkeley.edu, Understanding Evolution (emphasis mine).Which part of it don't I understand? So since you don't recognise any distinction between micro' an macro' evolution, to be logically consistent, neither can you recognise any distinction between ToE and the concept of UCA, becasue UCA is just ToE plus time.

Notice how this article you quoted uses the term "evolutionary theory" and never the term "the theory of evolution". That's because "evolutionary theory" (sometimes referred to as "evolutionary principles" in other articles) in this context is a subset of "the theory of evolution" - ToE includes all the principles of evolution (some of which can be useful) plus the concept of UCA (which is useless), whereas "evolutionary theory/principles" need not include the concept of UCA.Thus, it is easy to find articles or papers that detail practical uses for "evolutionary theory/principles", but as I've already pointed out, articles or papers detailing practical uses for "the theory of evolution" don't exist - ie, the concept of UCA can't b separated from ToE.

For fuck sake, Dredge, Berkeley are trying to reduce a complex scientific concept into a publicly understandable sound bite.If you emailed Berkley they'd explain to you what I've already explained to you that there may not be a single UCA, but just as Newtonian Gravitational Theory is correct enough for all everyday uses but requires Einsteinian explantions when things get more complex, common descent is good enough to get the idea across for the vast majority of species that have ever lived.Now grow up and learn something.

The P. ralstoni clade includes another genus? I wouldnt consider a different genus the same "kind" at all.So where does the P. ralstoni clade end? I've got a better idea - science should dump its present terminology and adopt my mine. Here is my latest brilliant idea: The evolution that is practically useful is the stuff that can be directly observed and should be referred to as "empirical evolution", not "microevolution". This will differentiate it from useless theoretical evolution.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Thank you. I believe there are drugs available that might help you with your schizophrenia. The concept of UCA is a prediction/ possible conclusion of the ToE. Sure. There is no problem or contradiction.

Lying by quote-mine now?

quote:

---

(Berkeley University): An introduction to evolution

​

The definition

​

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene ” or more precisely and technically, allele ” frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

​

The explanation

​

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

​

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

---

UCA is NOT a necessary part of the theory as noted in the definition section.Quote-mining like this is a form of lying -- trying to make an article say what it doesn't say when read in full by conflating two separate paragraphs from different sections to make it look like one paragraph is misrepresentation. Intentionally misrepresenting facts is lying.The explanation is not part of the definition. The definition makes no reference to LUCA, period, end stop.The explanation tells us what the theory helps us to understand about the history of life. It tells us what the evidence shows -- the pattern of common ancestry from today back to the first evidence of life.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : color added

Absolutely.
It's the difference between arguing with "identifying what is true" as your priority vs. "having people agree with me" as your priority.
Therefore - I think they "mistake their opinions for facts" more because they don't care about identifying the truth. They are more concerned with getting agreement on their idea - which is more of a mental tug-of-war than a search for accuracy.One side will discuss facts and be open to their review, criticism and understanding.
The other side will say "anything and everything" that they think will sway opinions to "their side." Which is embarrassingly useless when attempting to discuss whether or not something is factually true in reality.
It doesn't fool children - let alone anyone actually working in a field focused on searching-for-accurate-reality.It makes for a few fun moments throughout the work-day, though

AFAICS, you are the only one quoting Dawkins around here. Why do you find him to be such an authority?

HGT.

I see you don't know much set theory. If a subset of the ToE has practical use then the ToE has practical use.

Except that they didn't 'appear out of nowhere'. They had precursors. We have been over this a few times now ... Heh, heh .... Thank you for the humor break. I just love it when a YEC tells me what evolution is supposed to do or not do. Of course not and I didn't say that there was. And your evidence is that it 'looks like an orchard'? Wow! Powerful stuff! The only sweeping away done around here is your dismissal of all the evidence that there was no 'explosion' in the sense of an instantaneous expansion. Ah, another gap in your knowledge. Think of 'artillery'. And no, the point is that tens of millions of years is not an explosive event.Well, except to a YEC, I suppose. Did you miss the part where he said "geological moment" and "geological abruptness"?Do you understand the ramifications of that phrase? Particularly when is arguing for PE? Why is it irrelevant? Because you don't want it to be?The record shows that there was metazoan life prior to the Cambrian and there was probably a lot more considering the sparsity of fossils from that period. And there were millions of years to evolve the basic Phyla that were preserved in the Cambrian System. So, explain it. You are the one who implied that all major 'phyla' (your understanding) appeared in the Cambrian and I'm saying 'So what?"

And curiously it doesn't matter one whit of ant frass what you think.You are not a biologist. The evidence clearly shows that Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus are descendant from Pelycodus ralstoni and that makes them part of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade. It appears that they did not survive into the Oligocene:

quote:

---

Strepsirrhini - Wikipedia

​

Notharctids, which most closely resembled some of Madagascar's lemurs, come from Europe and North America. The European branch is often referred to as cercamoniines.[37] The North American branch thrived during the Eocene, but did not survive into the Oligocene.[38][39] Like the adapids, the European branch were also extinct by the end of the Eocene.[34]

---

And curiously it still doesn't matter one whit of ant frass what you think.You lose, it is not a "better idea" ... it avoids the science and it is just a self serving denial of the evidence that supports evolution. People without your religious bias and your preconceptions don't need your idea to understand biology to the full extent offered by evolution.Enjoy