|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Believing man is 6,000-10,000 years old is not dependent on believing in a young earth.
You presented a YEC claim That is a false YEC claim. I specifically called upon you to explain why you make such a false claim . Instead, you went out of your way to avoid answering the question. Like a typical YEC. If you do not want to be seen as a YEC, then stop behaving like one. So answer the question!
Sorry, but I can’t answer your question: I don’t know what you’re talking about. You have discombobulated my fragile, eggshell mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
1. Some “basic theories of evolution” may be “basic theories of biology” that are useful, so I would have no reason to throw them out. The theory of common descent is both useless and untestable, so it wouldn’t matter if that one was throw out (although many atheists would accuse me of disrespecting their religion). If we were to throw out the basic theories of evolution...among which you assume is a "Universal Common Ancestor" hypothesis...praytell what would you replace these theories with??!! 2. What would I replace the theory of common descent with? I wouldn’t replace it with anything, because no one needs an explanation for the fossil record - it’s nothing more than an irrelevant, historical curiosity. However, I believe the best scientific explanation for the fossil record is that it is the result of genetic engineering performed by aliens (I also believe that within ten years, the “aliens did it” explanation will become the dominant explanation in science, finally replacing the inadequate, nineteenth-century Darwinian story).
OK...lets limit my question to applied science. What specifically would we use as the basis for our new hypothesis as to how applied science works
I would be happy to answer your question . if I knew what the hell you were talking about.
what commonality, if any...humans specifically have that supplants the UCA?
I would be happy to answer your question . if I knew what the hell you were talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
That what I meant (which should have been bleedin’ obvious).
It would be more accurate to say "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied. It's inferred from the evidence showing common ancestry.
It may infer common ancestry via biological evolution . but common ancestry via genetic experiments performed by aliens is a much better explanation. However, there is no way of testing either hypothesis.
You can access the abstract HERE, but the article is behind a pay-wall.
In case, you can pay for it. I’ve actually got better things to spend my money on than evolutionist stories - lamingtons, for example. You may not have heard of lamingtons - they’re native to Australia. A lamington a day keeps the doctor away. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
I asked you to explain your claim, not to mindlessly repeat it. Explain why is necessary to accept that all life shares a common ancestor in order to understand antibiotic resistance and the evolution of blind fish?
As before, you won't supply such an explanation - because you can't. There exist professors of biology who are YECs - according to you, these professors can't understand how antibiotic resistance works or how blind fish evolve!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
Don' t be silly.
But you think that adding "God did it" anywhere there are gaps in our knowledge improves our ability to explain things scientifically? But what you don't seem to get is that even if evolutionary theory was actually a terrible theory, we would still continue to use it until a better theory came along - simply because it IS the best theory we have regarding the diversity of life on earth.
The best scientific explanation for the history of life is that aliens performed feats of genetic engineering. The Darwinist explanation is a nineteenth-century idea that is inadequate and outdated.
How could you possibly know if all members of a genus shared a common ancestor? How could you know if several genera shared a common ancestor. For example: in the cat family, Felidae, there are at least 14 extant genera. Are each of these separate creations? or is each of the 8 lineages a separate creation? Or is the whole family descended from a common ancestor - as most creationists claim? What is your criteria for determining the answer?
Why would I need to answer these questions? The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless.
If you are disparaging basic research in general, sure, often times basic research has no application in applied science. But that building block will be added to by another basic researcher and another until something useful does come from it.
No kidding? Biology needs research to progress.
Do you think I am going to go to work next week and apply your claims to my work? No, I am going to go with what has been proven to work.
What are you talking about? Why the hell would I want to you stop using "what has been proven to work"?All I want you to do is explain why is it necessary to "root" a plant you are studying to some extinct "ancestor" that supposedly existed millions of years ago - because this sounds like a complete waste of time to me. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Whatever. When you said you "know" the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile, you were talking nonsense. Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. I do not "know" (your sense of the word) nor do I "prove" anything. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
The problem you have is that this evolutionary event is supported by evidence.
Yeah, right - your "evidence" is a few fossils with a gigantic gap between reptiles and mammals. That's it.You have no the slightest idea what so sort of environmental pressures would cause the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a mammal, nor can you begin to explain how the supposed mutations evolved in this process would confer survival advantages. As usual, the massive holes in your tissue-thin "theory" are filled with huge doses of wishful thinking and blind faith in evolution. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for the information. I need to re-acquaint myself with the details - my memory, my fragile eggshell mind and my low IQ (9) have conspired against me on this occasion.
Anyways, none of that weakens my argument: There is no fossil record of evolutionary ancestors for the many novel phyla that appeared during and after the Cambrian explosion. For example, trilobites, fish and insects seemingly appeared out of nowhere.The best scientific argument for this evidence is genetic engineering performed by aliens (and not Darwinian evolution, which is little more than a glorified version of the nineteenth-century superstition of spontaneous generation). Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I suggest Karl Popper's grasp of the English language is pathetic - I understand very little of the above statement.
"My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements."””Karl Popper, Popper 1959. p 19 When a theory passes such testing it is said to be validated rather than "proven"
Okay. Thanks.
We know that all the evidence known to date is consistent with the theory of evolution explanation for the various intermediate stages of development of the mammal ear from the reptile ear, and that the theory of evolution provides the best known available explanation for this evidence.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the Darwinian explanation prevailed in primitive minds, but Darwin et al had no concept of advanced aliens from outer space and no experience of UFOs, but these days we know better.The best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth is that it is the result of billions of years of aliens having fun with genetic engineering. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
Many historical facts and events described in the Bible have been corroborated by archaeology. Look it up and learn.
Please be advised, just because you assert something does not make it true. By no standard is your bible an actual history. In order to be considered a document that recounts actual historical events it would need provenance and corroboration. That would just be the start to be considered a document reflecting actual history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Really? According to Gunter Bechly, there is no evidence whatsoever of evolutionary ancestors of insects. Dredge writes: Earlier Arthropods, obviously. What are the evolutionary ancestors of insects? Who should I believe - you or a world-renowned paleontologist who has three insects named after him? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
1. Er, please be advised that one lucky find is hardly statistically significant. This was tested and validated with the search for (and discovery of) Tiktaalik: they went to a location and geologic age of rock deposits meeting the temporal/special matrix for a “missing link” (intermediate or transitional fossil) and there it was. 2. Fossils indicate that some kind of "evolution" has occurred over billions of years, but fossils tell us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what caused that "evolution". 3. Tikaalik and "evolution" can be explained by my "aliens did it" theory. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Did I say that?
But you do seem to know that it is complete, no? That is one reason why you can so glibly say that there are no transitional fossils.
1. There are plenty of transitional fossils. Every fossil is a transitional. But their paucity suggests very large jumps have occurred, which doesn't suggest a steady process of biological evolution. In others words, genetic engineering is a much better explanation of the evidence. 2. Fossils tell us ZERO about what caused evolution. The Darwinian explanation is not confirmed in the slightest by fossils. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
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!!
The fossils fill that gap. Are transitional fossils evidence or not?
Fossils of evidence of Darwinian evolution, progressive creation and genetic engineering by aliens. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 136 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
Thomas Aquinas argued that it is a much greater feat for God to create than to modify something that already exists.
...if God did indeed do it that way He is fooling everyone. Now, why would an omnipotent Being need to do a silly thing like that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025