Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 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 245 of 1385 (849873)
03-24-2019 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Tangle
03-21-2019 4:50 AM


Tangle writes:
The principles of evolution are derived from the theory of evolution; they're not some seperate thing dissociated from it.
1. What are "the principles of evolution"? They are simply the mechanisms of evolution - such as mutations and natural selection - which are observable and demonstrable facts. Are you trying to tell me that these facts wouldn't exist and stand alone as facts without the theory of evolution?
2. The terms, "principles of evolution" and "the theory of evolution" are not interchangable as they are fundamentally different things. The "principles of evolution" are facts and the "theory of evolution" is simply an idea. So your claim that the practical uses for "evolutionary principles" you quoted (in post 183) are the same as practical uses for the "theory of evolution" is incorrect.
Dictionary definition of "theory" (from my iPad) - "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: (for example) Darwin's theory of evolution."
"none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory" - Louis Bouroune (Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, p. 79.
And of course, there are thousands of result for practical uses of evolution.
Depending on the context, the word "evolution" can refer to the theory of evolution or it can refer to the principles/mechanisms of evolution. If the latter, then of course there are many practical uses for "evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2019 4:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 4:56 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 246 of 1385 (849874)
03-24-2019 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
03-22-2019 3:23 AM


Tangle writes:
Dredge writes:
On second thougths, I might be barking up the wrong tree here
On third thoughts, I recant that statement, which was influenced by the livescience.com definiton of "the theory of evolution" that I mentioned - in my haste I didn't read it in full (somone with a fragile, egg-shell mind is unfortunately prone to such mistakes). The part I missed says,
"The theory (of evolution) has two main points ... All life on Earth is connected and related to each other ... and this diversity of life is a product of modifications of populations by natural selection ... (which is) supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology".
In other words, according to this definition, "since all life on Earth is connected and related to each other", the theory of evolution cannot be separated from the concept that all life on earth evolved from LUCA. Therefore. if there is no practical use for the concept of LUCA, there is no practical use for the theory of evolution.
"Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists."
This quote is partly true and partly false:
It is TRUE that there are many practical applications for "evolutionary biology".
It is TRUE that a knowledge of the mechanisms by which "organisms evolve through natural selection" has provided many practical applications.
It is NOT TRUE that "the theory of evolution" has provided practical applications.
Btw, thank you for going to the trouble of providing the scientific information contained in your post.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2019 3:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 5:12 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 247 of 1385 (849875)
03-24-2019 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by AZPaul3
03-22-2019 10:36 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
Understanding the internet and google, how they work, from where their data flows, this is not at all surprising. There are a lot of useless uninformed treatments in such a list of results.
Actually, it isn't at all surprising: There are no practical uses for ToE, which why one cannot find any "practical uses for the theory of evolution" on the 'net.
When you find a scientific article or paper that describes practical uses for "the theory of evolution", wake me up.
I get the impression you don't even look at the results. You scan the titles, scan a few words looking for a bone to pick, but eschew the scholastic rigor of understanding the data and the concepts the various sources, in concert, seek to convey.
You're correct to certain extent - some articles or papers I come across are too technical for my fragile, egg-shell mind to digest. So in such cases I simply try and get the overall gist of what is being presented.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2019 10:36 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 248 of 1385 (849876)
03-24-2019 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Stile
03-22-2019 11:30 AM


Stile writes:
You're hilarious ... here were two of them in the link you just quoted. One of the big, huge ones, and one of the small, specific ones:
"Medicine
Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.
Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.
Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[7] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[8] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.
Let's see now ... the quotes you so kindly supplied indicates there are practical medical uses relating to "how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection ... mutations within the pathogen genome ... environmental pressure (ie, antibiotic action) ... changes that have occured during (an) organism's evolution ... genes ... human genetic disorders". All these items involve no more observable, demonstrable FACTS. Please point out the evolutionary theory you are claiming, as I can't see any.
Btw, what I mean by "evolutionary theory" is what I consider macroevolution* or the theory of evolution - ie, that all life on earth evolved from LUCA via a process of natural selection.
* My definition of macroevolution is genus-genus evolution or evolution above the level of genus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Stile, posted 03-22-2019 11:30 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 5:20 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2019 1:49 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 262 by Stile, posted 03-25-2019 8:48 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 263 by NosyNed, posted 03-25-2019 10:04 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 274 by vimesey, posted 03-26-2019 5:38 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 249 of 1385 (849877)
03-24-2019 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Tanypteryx
03-22-2019 1:24 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
no one is convinced that all life on earth evolved from UCA
Not true. There are in fact millions of people in the world who believe that all life on earth evolved from UCA.
But apparently it's more scientific to believe that all life on earth evolved from LUCA.
You have no credibility.
You may be the only person on this website who doesn't believe I should should be awarded three honorary doctorates in evolutionary biology - one from Harvard, one from MIT and one from Oxford.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2019 1:24 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-24-2019 3:43 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 260 by Dogmafood, posted 03-24-2019 8:02 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 264 of 1385 (849915)
03-26-2019 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by edge
03-23-2019 12:02 PM


Re: Pills
edge writes:
But the theory explains those facts.
Really? What evolutionary theory is that?
Why is any evolutionary theory needed to explain the facts pertaining to the action of antibiotics? One ingests a toxin (antibiotic) that kills certain bacteria in one's body - what's that got to do with the theory of evolution?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by edge, posted 03-23-2019 12:02 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by JonF, posted 03-26-2019 8:57 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 277 by edge, posted 03-26-2019 10:41 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 265 of 1385 (849916)
03-26-2019 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by ringo
03-23-2019 12:08 PM


ringo writes:
No. The common ancestor is based on observation.
If so, where was this common ancestor observed and what name did they give it? And please provide an photo of its fossil remains.
The observations happen to lead back to one root but that is not a requirement of the evolutionary process.
I agree with you here. But the "evolutionary process" is not the same as "the theory of evolution" - the "evolutionary process" is one part of "the theory of evolution".
ToE has two parts:
1. All organisms on earth are connected and related to each other, since they all descended from a common ancestor.
2. All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection (and other mechanisms, which could collectively be called, "the evolutionary process").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 03-26-2019 11:42 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 266 of 1385 (849917)
03-26-2019 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by ringo
03-23-2019 12:11 PM


On the contrary, if scientists do use it, it is useful.
Well of course, but there's a big difference between "if" and "do". What is your evidence that they "do use it"? Let me guess ... you have none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 03-23-2019 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 03-26-2019 11:45 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 267 of 1385 (849918)
03-26-2019 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by RAZD
03-23-2019 1:03 PM


Re: Applied Science is the use of scientific knowledge
RAZD writes:
nything we learn through science that is them used for some purpose would be applied science. This includes DNA matching used in forensics or ancestry studies. This DNA sequencing has been used to develop a genetic 'tree of life' - identifying common ancestors or their most probable common breeding ancestral populations.
This DNA "tree of life" sounds like it might involve Darwin's "tree of life" and his theory of evolution - but it doesn't; in fact, no knowledge of the theory of evoluiton is needed in order to trace and construct a useful phylogentic tree of DNA common ancestry.
Such "trees" are confined to the level of genus and are really not much different to a family tree that humans use to trace their ancestors.
Believe it or not, there are many such family trees of life recorded in the Bible and none of the authors knew about the theory of evolution!
There is no reason why a YEC biologist (ie, someone who denies the theory of evolution and the concept LUCA) could not trace and contruct a DNA 'tree of life'.
This leads to the concept of universal common ancestor
Wow, that's quite a leap of faith ... from "variations within a genus" to "all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor"!
This is like asking for a practical application to the scientific knowledge that the sky appears to be blue.
1. It is like asking if there are any practical uses for the theory of evolution - the answer appears to be "NO".
2. ... except the theory of evolution isn't "knowledge". I dare say no theory qualifies as knowledge.
You could say that (L)UCA is a practical application of the scientific knowledge of common ancestry via evolution and the occurrence of divergent speciation (which is a process that has been observed, and thus a fact known to occur)
You could, but that would be nonsense, as there's nothing remotely "practical" about a mere idea.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2019 1:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2019 4:47 PM Dredge has replied

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


Message 268 of 1385 (849919)
03-26-2019 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by dwise1
03-23-2019 7:45 PM


Re: Dropping In Late To The Conversation...
dwise1 writes:
So the basic goal in those laws is not to teach creationism, but rather to prevent the teaching of evolution.
Oh, nooooo!! Imagine what would happen if no one was taught the theory of evolution! Biologists would be rendered completely useless and have to drive taxis! All crops would fail and no one could breed farm animals! No drugs could be developed! Immunization would become just a memory! No one would know that their ancestors were jelly fish!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by dwise1, posted 03-23-2019 7:45 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 269 of 1385 (849920)
03-26-2019 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Dogmafood
03-23-2019 6:32 AM


Re: Name one.
ProtoTypical writes:
A bit of an odd semantic victory that you are claiming here. Consider what the differences are between the principles of a process and the theory of a process. Take flight for example. The principles have always been there and exist independently of any explanation of them. We can shoot an arrow or throw a rock without having the slightest notion about why they follow the trajectory that they do. However, with the development of a theory of flight that explains and defines the principles involved we are able to predict what might happen if you strap an engine to a pair of wings.
So using only the principles of biology we could continue probing around in the dark to see what works and what doesn't. Essentially just try everything until something works for you. Similar to the way that a child approaches the world. Now then if you accumulate the observations and filter them through a non eggshell like mind you have a chance of producing a theory that can bring some direction to your studies.
An even better analogy might be that principles are like the roads and a theory is like the map. Can you think of any practical use for a map?
Excellent rhetoric! All you need to do is now is back it up by suppling an example of how the concept of LUCA or the theory of evolution has provided a practical use in applied science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Dogmafood, posted 03-23-2019 6:32 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dogmafood, posted 03-26-2019 7:52 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 270 of 1385 (849921)
03-26-2019 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tanypteryx
11-21-2018 2:11 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tanypteryx writes:
The effects of climate change on natural populations and our domesticated organisms can often be predicted using knowledge of their evolutionary history. Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.
... none of which requires any knowledge of the theory of evolution.
"their evolutionary history" and "the science of evolutionary biology" have proven useful but neither of these or even both of them add up to the theory of evolution.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2018 2:11 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-26-2019 2:10 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 271 of 1385 (849922)
03-26-2019 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
11-21-2018 2:44 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
PaulK writes:
Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do.
Big deal - transitional fossils could also be the result of progressive creation - a process that can look like an overall process of biological evolution in the fossil record, but isn't.
If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear.
Imo, any transition from one genus into another genus is clear evidence of divine intervention (creation) - which means the fossil record contains lots and lots of clear evidence of creation.
Evolutions do their darndest to explain the evidence (gaps) away with all manner of far-fetched theories, but a progressive creation model easily explains all those pesky gaps.
Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.
It does. During the Cambrian explosion a vast array of very different creatures appear suddennly without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors, so the fossil record looks more like an orchard of unrelated trees. It appears that Darwin's "tree of life" is a myth and a fig-tree of evolutionary imagination.
"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
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 33 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2018 2:44 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by edge, posted 03-26-2019 10:53 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 03-26-2019 12:28 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 272 of 1385 (849923)
03-26-2019 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
11-21-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Faith writes:
I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already
Thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans strongly suggests there are natural limits to evolution.
No empiricial evidence exists that suggests genus-genus evolution (ie, macroevolution) is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 11-21-2018 2:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 284 of 1385 (849969)
03-28-2019 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Tangle
03-24-2019 4:42 AM


Tangle writes:
I see I'm talking to a child.
What do you expect? I've often stated on this site that I have a fragile, eggshell mind. I got that description from a Door's song called Peace Frog - "Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile, eggshell mind."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2019 4:42 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024