|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Because my understanding of what existed before fish is basically sponges, worms and jelly-fish - ie, invertebrates. Why do you think there should be links between sponges, worms, jelly-fish and fish? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Try again . you conveniently ignored that part of my question that says "antibiotic resistance". Explain why it's necessary to accept that all life on earth shares a common ancestor in order to understand antibiotic resistance.
I thought you were asking about UCA in applied biology?What part of applied biology involves evolving blind fish? So - of course I won't answer this question, this question has nothing to do with what we're talking about (UCA and applied biology.) Unless you're about to share the blind-fish-creation studies in applied biology? Therefore - according to me, any YECs (or any non-YECs, even) developing medicine without the idea of UCA behind them - wouldn't be any good at it - they would be known for being "useless" in developing drugs and vaccines.
It's easy to make a stupid, baseless claim; it's not so easy to back it up with a sane explanation or evidence . but have a go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
I don't recall saying that "Ediacaran-type of fauna could not be precursors to the Cambrian ones." However, I do recall saying there is no evidence of evolutionary links between Ediacaran life-forms and the animals that appear in the Cambrian. And an explanation of why the Edicaran-type of fauna could not be precursors to the Cambrian ones. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
No, that's incorrect. I said nothing about believing in aliens - in fact, I definitely don't believe in aliens. I said aliens performing genetic engineering is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. I also said that science can't explain the fossil record. Right, says a guy who believes aliens in a fictional book called the bible put people on the Earth 6000 years ago. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Very funny.
Why do you think there should be links between sponges, worms, jelly-fish and fish?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
NWRT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
I totally agree. The gaps are where aliens performed genetic engineering to produce a novel organism(s).
By definition the gaps are where evolution isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
I still don't see any connection either - the gaps from sponges/jelly-fish/worms to fish is best scientifically explained by aliens performing genetic engineering. So? I'm still not seeing the connection. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Not quite - my "aliens did it" theory is an example of sublime science produced by the mind of a deadset genius. Do you realize that many scientists thought Einstein was babbling when he first aired his theories? I think you mean that the intellectually laziest explanation is genetic engineering by aliens. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
He should have stuck to designing coastlines, which he had a real talent for - his fjords were pretty ordinary, if you ask me.
It was Slartibartfast pissing around after he got bored with fjords ;-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
My evidence is the same as your evidence that life on earth evolved from a microbe - the fossil record. Don't blame me for your lack of scientific understanding.
you certainly haven't come up with even the remotest evidence for alien genetic engineers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
"deadset", actually. I've corrected it.
"Deadest", perhaps ..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes: Why do you think there should be links between sponges, worms, jelly-fish and fish? "Looking for Evidence Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms”including the first-ever animals”pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk. But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting”and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted. The trunk was supposed to branch into many different species, each species giving rise to many genera, and towards the top of the tree you would find so much diversity that you could distinguish separate phyla”the large divisions (sponges, mosses, mollusks, chordates, and so on) that comprise the kingdoms of animals, plants, and several others”take your pick. But, as Berlinski points out, the fossil record shows the opposite: “representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up. (Although fossils are subject to interpretation, and some biologists place pre-Cambrian life-forms closer than others to the new-fangled Cambrian creatures.) Some researchers have guessed that those missing Precambrian precursors were too small or too soft-bodied to have made good fossils. Meyer notes that fossil traces of ancient bacteria and single-celled algae have been discovered: smallness per se doesn’t mean that an organism can’t leave fossil traces”although the existence of fossils depends on the surroundings in which the organism lived, and the history of the relevant rock during the ages since it died. The story is similar for soft-bodied organisms. Hard-bodied forms are more likely to be fossilized than soft-bodied ones, but many fossils of soft-bodied organisms and body parts do exist. Precambrian fossil deposits have been discovered in which tiny, soft-bodied embryo sponges are preserved”but no predecessors to the celebrity organisms of the Cambrian explosion. This sort of negative evidence can’t ever be conclusive. But the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified”according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion." - from Giving Up Darwin, by David Gelernter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
My aliens are as invisible as your macroevolution.
you certainly haven't come up with even the remotest evidence for alien genetic engineers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 139 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
For an understanding of genetic engineering, just google "genetic engineering".
scientifically explain aliens performing genetic engineering.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025