|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Please cite a scientific paper or article that specifically describes a practical use for "the theory of evolution".
Yes, the thread is littered with them. Here's one from Message 171: Just a simple thing called "medicine."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith writes:
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. The habit of thinking in terms of the ToE unfortunatley creates the illusion that it is relevant though it is not. 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: 6.6 |
Dredge writes: My progressive creation model also explains why all life on earth appears to be genetically related. Can you show what difference there is between 'progressive creation' and evolution please.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: |
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?
macroevolution is just microevolution plus time
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Dredge writes: So you agree with Berkeley Uni when it says "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"? 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.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: |
The P. ralstoni clade includes Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus ... and all of their descendants ... it's like a kind reproducing after it's kind, where all descendants are members of the original kind. That's why I said "All the species above Pelycodus ralstoni in the chart are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade" ... ALL the species descendant from Pelycodus ralstoni are members of the Pelycodus ralstoni clade.
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?
Yes ... it is a simple concept ... and if you want to learn how to discuss science scientifically then learn the science and the terminology used in the science.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Dredge writes: Thus, it is easy to find articles or papers that detail practical uses for "evolutionary theory/principles", Thank you.
but as I've already pointed out, articles or papers detailing practical uses for "the theory of evolution" don't exist I believe there are drugs available that might help you with your schizophrenia.
ie, the concept of UCA can't b separated from ToE. The concept of UCA is a prediction/ possible conclusion of the ToE. Sure. There is no problem or contradiction.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but a UCA is not a necessary part of the theory Tell that to Berkeley University: "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. Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time ... The CENTRAL IDEA of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor" - evolution.berkeley.edu, Understanding Evolution (emphasis mine). Lying by quote-mine now?
quote: 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. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : color addedby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 294 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
edge writes: It's pretty clear that the anti-science crowd mistakes their opinions for facts, and that contrary opinions can be dismissed for no other reason. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Dawkins is an anti-evolutionist?
AFAICS, you are the only one quoting Dawkins around here. Why do you find him to be such an authority?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Okay, I take your point, but if there is more than one common ancestor, how can one say "all life on Earth is connected ... to each other"
HGT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 418 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I see you don't know much set theory. If a subset of the ToE has practical use then the ToE has practical use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1956 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I've already explained why - the Cambrian explosion looks nothing like a single "tree of life"; rather, it looks like an orchard of unrelated trees that appeared out of nowhere.
Except that they didn't 'appear out of nowhere'. They had precursors. We have been over this a few times now ...
Oh dear, that's not supposed to happen ...
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.
There's nothing in my religion about the fossil record.
Of course not and I didn't say that there was.
However, the fossil record does offer strong evidence of creation, which is in my religion.
And your evidence is that it 'looks like an orchard'? Wow! Powerful stuff!
According to your belief system, evolution is a fact, therefore an inconvenient truth like the Cambrian explosiion is simply swept under the carpet and rationalized away.
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.
Ten million years is an "explosion" in modern ordnance? (whatever "ordnance" means.)
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.
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in A GEOLOGICAL MOMENT, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time ... ALL MAJOR DISCOVERIES OF THE PAST CENTURY HAVE ONLY HEIGTHENED THE MASSIVENESS AN GEOLOGICAL ABRUPTNESS OF THIS FORMATIVE EVENT ..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682.
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?
Probably, but that's irrelevant to my point. What's relevant is what existed in the Ediacaran and what suddenly appeared without any evolutionary history in the Cambrian.
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.
Mammals appeared later - so what?
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?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The P. ralstoni clade includes another genus? I wouldnt consider a different genus the same "kind" at all. 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.
So where does the P. ralstoni clade end? It appears that they did not survive into the Oligocene:
quote: 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. 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. Enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024