|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1960 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
That is, if UCA was not applicable - those creating medicine would be using some other idea as a guide, or we would not have 'new medicine antibiotic resistance' at all.
Good point. If you don't accept the UCA theory, then you might accept something else like like some form of voodoo. So, UCA is useful in taking the oxygen from invalid and abandoned concepts. Interesting way of looking at it... Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 298 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
edge writes: If you don't accept the UCA theory, then you might accept something else like like some form of voodoo. A significant part of it, yes. I'm also thinking along the lines of focusing imagination in attempts to develop new forms of medicine. It's not like the guy looking for new medicine just dumps random chemicals in a vial, drinks it, and says "Nope - still got mono!"Brute force method, go! No. They look at the issue, they look at what's worked before (if anything) then they make an educated guess (which will always include the idea that life-developed-from-previous-life-back-and-back-and-back-into-history on some level) and they try that. Such things lead to new medicines that work. Other methods (voodoo, brute force as-described-above...) are laughed out of serious trials. Sure - they might work.But - they don't. It's like looking for oil. Sure - you can imagine a world-wide-flood and God hiding oil deposits and young-earth geology and possibly find oil.But those who try such methods - don't find oil. Who finds oil?Those who focus on the ideas that work - geology based on ideas that can all connect back to 'debris settles on previous debris' to some degree or another. It may not be part of the checklist on "how to find oil" - but that checklist wouldn't be what it is without that driving, originating principle.Applied biology in medicine may not have "consider UCA theory" as part of it's checklist - but that checklist wouldn't be what it is without that driving, originating principle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 666 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Y'know, the proverb "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" isn't about horses. I still don't see any connection either....Hippopotamus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Every "scientific explanation" (eg theory) is based on observed evidence. There is no evidence of "aliens having fun with genetic engineering" ergo it is not a scientific explanation but a made up fantasy.
I suggest Karl Popper's grasp of the English language is pathetic - I understand very little of the above statement. Not surprising given your demonstrated lack of understanding of science in general. Think of it this way: Just as you cannot prove a negative unless you know all the information possible on a given topic, so too you cannot prove an absolute positive unless you know all the information possible on a given topic. You are left with dealing with the portion of the information that is available.
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. A scientific explanation explains this information that is available and provides a mechanism that has also been observed to operate. The ToE explains the known information and provides mechanisms (mutation and selection, drift, etc) that accounts for the information. With no evidence of aliens, nor of any mechanism by which the insert their "genetic engineering" during observed processes of evolution, there is no basis for making this assumption. Particularly as the ToE does explain it without the use of aliens (Occam's wicked razor). This is why the ToE has been validated and the "alien genetic experiment" concept has not.
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. Except that there is no evidence to substantiate any observation. Willow-the-wisp sights are not evidence of aliens. But if you have something substantial, please present it. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Not quite - my "aliens did it" theory is an example of sublime science produced by the mind of a deadset genius. The problem with using aliens or an intelligent designer or any of their variants to explain anything is that it establishes there's only so much we are capable of understanding, which happens to be the level of knowledge we have currently acquired and that we can't take it any further. Some explanations even suggest we have over-reached and have to rein in our knowledge. If all you are looking for is an answer then these explanations are probably sufficient, but where do we go from there? Science also is very good at providing answers, but I would argue that is not its greatest strength. What makes science important is that it provides a means to ask more questions. This leads to more answers which allows more questions, and so our knowledge grows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7
|
You could have just said you have no answer why you think there should be links between sponges, worms, jelly-fish and fish.
I have no idea why you would post this crap from a whackjob like David Gelernter. "A mere 70-odd million years."What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1960 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
"Looking for Evidence
Hmmm, grasping at straws, no? (lengthy quote snipped for lack of relevance) - from Giving Up Darwin, by David Gelernter Are you really holding up a guy with degrees in Hebrew literature as an authority on the Cambrian explosion? This is a new low for you, but I suppose it's not unexpected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
We got pictures. What you got?
Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
For an understanding of genetic engineering, just google "genetic engineering".
scientifically explain aliens performing genetic engineering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
"a sensible progression"? Only if aliens performed genetic engineering to get from one stage to the next. You seem to be getting the fossil record confused with your evolution dreaming - the two don't line up. Where is the evidence of evolution from pre-E bacteria to E-fauna and then to the C-animals? Such evidence exists only in your evo-deluded mind. So you agree that it is a sensible progression from colonial bacteria to soft metazoans of the Ediacaran and then to Cambrian fauna? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
Where are the fossil ancestors of insects? Those gaps keep shrinking. Where are the fossils that link the Ediacaran fauna to the animals that appearing during the Cambrian. What's "shrinking" is the credibility of your Darwinian myth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Would it be ok if the aliens doing all this genetic engineering were called chemistry and entropy?
Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
This is just a dumb argument - you're got it back-to-front! The question is not whether the concept of UCA needs the understanding of antibiotic resistance, but whether the understanding of antibiotic resistance needs the concept of UCA!
if the understanding of antibiotic resistance was not the way it is - then the concept of UCA would be incorrect - there would be no evidence supporting it. Which, to rational people, implies that such ideas, theories and practical applications are inherently linked and should not be separated in attempts to make a silly fool of yourself If anyone could show there is no such thing as evolving from a common ancestor... all our ideas on how to apply biology would be turned on it's head.
I totally agree. Once again, you've got your wires crossed. Of course the concept of "common ancestry" is vital to biology - even a five year-old or the village-idiot could tell you that. But we're not talking about the utility of "common ancestry" - we're talking about the utility of "the theory of common ancestry"! Do you know the difference between the two? Here's a hint: The concept of UCA is more or less the theory of common ancestry.
Without the concept of UCA - their would be no point in creating medicine antibiotic resistance the way we do it.
What on earth are you talking about?
Since we do have the concept of UCA - it helps guide the creation of new medicines antibiotic resistances in helpful directions.
How? Furthermore, if accepting the concept of UCA is necessary for understanding antibiotic resistance, how can it be that I understand how the process of antibiotic resistance? And how could any of the YEC professors of biology (that I mentioned in an earlier post) teach the principle of antibiotic resistance if accepting the concept of UCA is necessary to understanding it?1st year Biology students: "Professor, please explain to us how antibiotic resistance develops." YEC Professor of Biology: "Er, sorry . I don't accept the concept of UCA so I don't understand how antibiotic resistance works. If you want to someone to explain it to you, you'll have to go to a different university." Hilarious! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024