Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 406 of 1385 (850259)
04-05-2019 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Stile
04-02-2019 1:08 PM


Stile writes:
Yes, the thread is littered with them. Here's one from Message 171: Just a simple thing called "medicine."
Please cite a scientific paper or article that specifically describes a practical use for "the theory of evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Stile, posted 04-02-2019 1:08 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Stile, posted 04-05-2019 1:33 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 407 of 1385 (850260)
04-05-2019 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-02-2019 1:57 PM


Faith writes:
The habit of thinking in terms of the ToE unfortunatley creates the illusion that it is relevant though it is not.
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.

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 424 by herebedragons, posted 04-06-2019 2:16 PM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 408 of 1385 (850261)
04-05-2019 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:12 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:12 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:59 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 409 of 1385 (850262)
04-05-2019 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Tangle
04-02-2019 3:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2019 3:00 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 410 of 1385 (850263)
04-05-2019 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Tangle
04-03-2019 3:33 AM


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.

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 413 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:42 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 418 by JonF, posted 04-05-2019 9:41 AM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 411 of 1385 (850264)
04-05-2019 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:16 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:49 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 412 of 1385 (850265)
04-05-2019 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by RAZD
04-03-2019 9:38 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2019 9:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2019 10:17 AM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 413 of 1385 (850266)
04-05-2019 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:29 AM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1655 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 414 of 1385 (850272)
04-05-2019 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:07 AM


quote mining -- misrepresentation
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:
(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.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : color added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:07 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 294 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 415 of 1385 (850273)
04-05-2019 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by edge
04-04-2019 11:50 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by edge, posted 04-04-2019 11:50 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:02 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 416 of 1385 (850275)
04-05-2019 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by Dredge
04-05-2019 2:01 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dawkins is an anti-evolutionist?
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!!!
AFAICS, you are the only one quoting Dawkins around here. Why do you find him to be such an authority?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 2:01 AM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 417 of 1385 (850276)
04-05-2019 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:07 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:07 AM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 418 of 1385 (850277)
04-05-2019 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:29 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:29 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:04 AM JonF has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1956 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 419 of 1385 (850279)
04-05-2019 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Dredge
04-05-2019 2:08 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 2:08 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:08 AM edge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1655 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 420 of 1385 (850282)
04-05-2019 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:39 AM


Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
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:
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]
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:39 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:22 AM RAZD 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