|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Is this another hit-and-run OP? Or are you going to play out this as before?
I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago, ...
I'm sure you have.
... but can't find any.
I'm shocked.
It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.
It would. You are not going to gain any more traction here than in the other forums you post. First of all, you are under the mistaken notion that all science must be directly applicable to whatever subset of applied science you care to abuse. Then you assume that you can make demands of us that we satisfy YOUR personal criteria for usefulness. You are going to ignore anything we post, right? Then you require us to play in your sandbox only, and ignore the fact that YEC/ID has no such application in applied sciences. No one really cares what your opinion is. You are trolling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
... the known fact that Species or Kinds do have built in ability to vary but only within the Kind.
So, Faith, tell us about the what species represented giraffe kind in Cambrian times, or even in the Jurassic? After all, modern giraffes must have adapted from a precursor giraffe, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
1. Wrong. Theoretical science can prove invaluable.
So, something value may be of no use?
2. Straw man.
Okay, then, what is your point?
Er, no - I can't find "my personal criteria" in the OP. The OP actually asks for usefulness according to applied science.
Then you agree that common ancestry is useful in pure science, yes? Again, I don't see the reason for you to make this point.
1. Irrelevant to the post.
Once again, in this case, I see no reason for you to make the point in the OP. You are welcome to your opinion but it is without effect.
2. I am not a YEC and I have never mentioned ID. 3. YEC/ID are religious beliefs - you want me to provide practical scientific applications for religious beliefs? Let me guess ... here you were thinking that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of your cherished belief in UCA, ...
Then you guess wrongly. I am not a biologist and that is not my first impression of the argument. To compound that, it is not MY belief, nor do I cherish it. Your insinuations tell me that you have a motive for your OP. Why not just come out and say it?
... but it seems that nothing in all of applied science depends on your UCA belief system - and you find this hard to accept?
What is there to accept? Your statement is so watered down that anyone could agree with it. It is your opinion that common ancestry has no direct practical application in "applied science". So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
My comment was a play on Theodore Dobzhansky's line that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has become a kind of mantra in biological science and is the title of his famous essay.
Then you are not talking about me. I have no such mantra.
Upon reading said essay, one realizes that what Dobzhansky meant by "evolution" was the Darwinian interpretation of the fossil record, which of course includes the concept of UCA.
And?
But Dobzhansky was deluded and wrong, for there is nothing in all of applied biology (ie, the only form of biology that matters) that depends on the concept/theory/conclusion of UCA or even human evolution.
Maybe you are deluded and wrong in trying to apply Dobzhansky's statement to applied science. AFAIK, Dobzhansky said nothing about 'applied biology'. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
ommon descent is useful in theoretical science, yes, but it is also useful in explaining why the Tooth Fairy has blonde hair and why ETs look a little like us humans.
Then what is your point? Who says that a theory must have direct application to 'applied science'. Maybe a theory should have an application in 'science'. AFAICS, you are just trying to create a false predicament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!
Try telling biologist who doesn't work in applied biology... You are the one who wanted to confine the discussion to 'applied biology' but now you want to extend it to be the same as all of biology including theoretical biology. Why not just say to 'all of science and engineering' and be done with it. Again, what is your actual point. Saying that a concept is useless in applied science is about as insipid as you can get. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I don't know - certainly not me.
So, you really don't have a point other than saying the equivalent of 'grass is green'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.
Okay, so we can just do away with basic biological science. Got it...
What?
What?
What?
Thank you for confirming that you have no real point. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to....
Interesting. Then who wrote this:
A biologist who doesn't work in the field of applied biology isn't worth talking to.
... if not you?
You must be confusing me with someone else.
No doubt someone is hacking your account, yes? You should report it to the management.
My "rules" (whatever that means) would not detract from the efficacy of the biological sciences and would in fact improve it, as no biologist would waste time on useless stories about ancient history, thinking such yarns are scientifically essential to his work.
I'm sure that science would be pleased to take the recommendations of scientifically illiterate anti-science laymen. We'll get to work on that tomorrow. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The point here Drudge, is that your claim is not worth debating. You are a troll ignorant of the science and the particulars of the issues. Your only purpose here is to insult evolution in a vain attempt to emotionally shore-up your errant beliefs in religious majik.
The argument here is an intellectually vacant exercise unless one just wants to stir the pot. Suggesting that a theory does not do something it was never intended to do is just a form of trolling, not to be taken seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
And do also you accept the theory of evolution that explains those fossils?
This question goes straight to the heart of the matter. I think I know how Dredge will answer, but will wait and see...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
1. Straw man.
Just following your line of reasoning.
2. When a theoretical biologist comes up with something important to say (as opposed to useless pseudo-scientific stories), wake me up.
Important to you? You jest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What?
That was a question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I'm simply asking if anyone can give me an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. It looks like you've got nothing to offer.
So, I have nothing to offer regarding your pointless question. Sue me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1930 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The "theory of evolution that explains those fossils"?
The fossil record, yes.
There is no such thing as science is incapable of explaining the fossil record.
According to whom? And if you are talking about explaining the fossil record to you ... well, that would be hopeless in any case. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024