|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Er, no ... you're wrong - a google search does not produce "thousands of results for practical applications for the theory of evolution." In fact, the number is ZERO. Take the quotes you supplied, for example: NONE of them say they are "practical uses for the theory of evolution" - if you read the text they are referred to as practical uses for "EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES".
So, let me get this straight. You don't think that the theory of evolution was useful in developing various 'principles of evolution', which ARE useful. Is that correct? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God.
I think you've repeated this a few times now.
I doubt if ToE reflects reality ...
You doubt the ToE? Well, that changes everything! Why didn't you say so in the first place? Where do I sign up? What was all this nonsense about 'no practical purpose in practical biology for the UCA'? Why the smokescreen?
... as, for starters, it does a very poor job of explaining the many gaps, ...
You got this straight from your favorite YEC websites, yes?
... distinct lack of transitiionals ...
Despite the documentation of hundreds of transitional fossils...
... and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms that are evident in the fossil record.
Only to a YEC can millions of years be 'sudden'. So, it all comes back to the tired old YEC mantras despite your pseudo-intellectual argument about usefulness and practicality of the UCA. Nothing new under the YEC sun. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Human beings have been making practical use of the "principles of evolution" in animal and plant breeding for thousands of years. They didn't need any "theory of evolution" to do so.
So, you are saying that the principle of transitional fossils was around long before the theory of evolution, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Can you live with the fact that there are no practical uses for the theory of evolution?
I can live with almost anything, particularly things that are pointless. That would include the fact that this is your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Which "evolutionary theory" might that be? I thought antibiotics worked according to facts, not a theory.
But the theory explains those facts. Oh, that's right! You don't need no stinking explanation. Neither do you have one. Nor do you care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yes - ToE cannot account for the fossil record.
Just to be clear, I use the term 'explain' rather than 'account for'.
No, I got it from the opinions of experts. For example,
Okay, so you reference a statement from Darwin made 175 years ago."The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species - from their initial appearance until their extinction - has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin, who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favoured explanation. When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of this 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false." - Wikipedia, "Punctuated Equilibrium" That's convincing. Have you ever entertained the notion that we might have learned a few things since then?
"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species" - Wikipedia, "Punctuated equilibrium".
Why didn't they say that "evolution is virtually non-existent in the fossil record" and not 'gradualism'? AFAICS, you didn't claim that 'gradualism does not explain the fossil record', did you? So, why did Gould and Eldredge reamain confident of the theory of evolution after discovering that gradualism is not present in the fossil record?
"Darwins argument (of a very incomplete fossil record) still persists as the favoured escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly ... I wish only to point out that (gradualism) was never 'seen' in the rocks."
Again, who cares? We are discussing evolution as an explanation for the fossil record, not gradualism.
"In the Cambrian explosion, we find segmented worms, velvet worms, starfish ... molluscs (bivalves, snails, squid and their relatives), sponges,brachiopods and other shelled animals appearing all at once, with their basic organisation, organ systems and sensory mechanisms already operational".
Please document starfish in the Cambrian. According to UCMP (Life During the Cambrian Period), "The more familiar starfish, brittle stars, and sea urchins had not yet evolved, ...". My impression is that someone is lying to you and that leaves some YEC website as a prime suspect. And really, do you think that these primitive worms and 'starfish' and snails looked anything like the modern counterparts?
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
Okaaaay ....1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disapppear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."" - The Panda's Thumb. A quote from a band of rabid anti-evolutionists shows that evolution does not explain the fossil record. Sure they do.[/sarc] Maybe you can explain the explanation, yes? And you do realize that in the geological record, suddenness can occur over millions of years, do you not? The fact is that fossil communities evolved over time. What is your explanation?
Dawkins says, "Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example 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" - The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p.229
And the problem is? Even Darwin understood that there were gaps and he even proposed an explanation that holds water today. I also refer you to the older precursors to Cambrian fauna in the Proterozoic known as the Ediacaran Fauna (Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia). Evolution explains all of this. So, what have you got? Your assertion that evolution does not explain the fossil record is failing. And even more interesting would be your alternative to evolution. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Really? What evolutionary theory is that?
The theory of evolution.
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?
Heh, heh ... Do you think that's all there is to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
Could be. The problem is that if one believed such an idea, one would look for independent evidence of such 'progressive creation'. If one were a real scientist. Or even if one were simply curious.
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.
I'm sure that is your opinion. Thank you.
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.
Again, that's a nice opinion on your part. The problem is that you have no evidence. See above.
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.
Actually they do appear with precursors in earlier geological periods. I have referred you to this fact before. Do you choose to ignore data?
"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
" ... as though ..." Interesting choice of words, don't you think? What does Dawkins go on to say? Does he then reject the theory of evolution? But it is interesting that you find Dawkins to be such a dependable expert on evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I take your point. I could have reduced that quote to "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted". But I left the reference to Darwin in there in the hope that the reader might put one and one together and realize that Darwin believed in evolution despite knowing how poorly the fossil record supported his theory.
Perhaps. More likely, he understood that the fossil record is actually more than the known part of the fossil record. It really wouldn't take a genius to figure that out. Or we might say, sure, that was the status of the known fossil record 175 years ago.
Oh, so you disgree with this part of the quote: "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted"? If so, I suggest you take that up with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia probably understands that 'sudden' in geological terms is not 'sudden' in human colloquial terms. Again, this is grade-school stuff.
A likely explanation would be that they had a priori belief that evolution is true (probably due to some personal philosophical conviction)- regardless of the inconventient truths the fossil record presents to that belief. Evolution is also the best scientific explanation for the fossil record.
Or it could be that they considered their theory of punctuated equilibrium to be a characteristic of evolution. How about you? Are you impervious to personal philosophical convictions regardless of inconvenient evidence in the fossil record?
Please explain.
You said that you did not get your information from YEC websites and yet you parrot the same inconsistencies and quote-mines that we see published on hundreds of YEC websites.
Gould considered the fossil record an "embarrassment" to Darwin's theory of gradualism, but I think the fossil record is an embarrassement to evolution.
Your opinion is noted. But please don't ascribe that same opinion to Darwin, Gould or Eldredge. But yes, gradualism is considered to be a only one simple element to the overall theory of evolution and perhaps not even that important. Well, it was formulated nearly two hundred years ago...
No, it shows that many highly-intelligent folks are willing to believe in evolution despite the serious problems the fossil record presents to this belief.
I'm not seeing the serious problems. Perhaps you are having a problem presenting them? Maybe it is only the unintelligent folks who see such problems.
There's no getting around the fact that finding organisms "already in an advanced state of evolution ... without any evolutionary history" (Dawkins) doesn't represent evidence of ToE; on the contrary, it represents evidence that ToE is false.
Dawkins admits to his oversimplification as shown by Jon earlier. There is plenty of previous history as we have pointed out. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?
I presume you mean that the fossil record is hitherto complete. So the ToE is based on fossil evidence that is merely hoped for, and doesn't actually exist. Got it.
Whut?? You really think that I believe all fossils have been discovered? I 'hope for' nothing but the evidence keeps coming in.
Despite the problems that the fossil record presents to ToE, ToE it is still the best scientific explanation of the fossil record ... not that means anything to me, as I believe science is incapable of explaining the fossil record.
Your opinion is noted. But if you have nothing of your own, please refrain from constant complaints about other peoples' work
Translation: "Evolution ATTEMPTS to explain all this."
Again, you create a strawman argument. Evolution does not try to explain 'everything' and it is certainly part of a learning process that continues. Is that such a bad way to gain knowledge? Oh, wait! You don't care about that, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sadly, but quite expectedly, dredge will not be responding to this post. One wonders why we bother to go to the work of doing actual research and presenting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What is the theory of evolution?
Without getting into jargon, it is an explanation of all the facts regarding how life diversified through time. In other words, it does exactly what a theory is supposed to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I don't confine reality to the very limited parameters of science. Therefore I consider progressive creation to be a realistic explanation for the fossil record.
Neither do I, however, your opinion is noted. However it its also noted that you have no independent support for your opinion.
Are you kidding? - Dawkins is an atheist; an atheist has no choice but to believe in evolution. In which case, the evidence for evolution is almost superfluous.
Hey, you're the one who is trying to make Dawkins look like an anti-evolutionist. Quote mining Dawkins isn't going to get you anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Sorry Mr. Dawkins, the Cambrian explosion still represents evidence of creation and evidence against ToE.
Even though you can't explain why. It's just your religion.
Yes, the appearance of animals with hard bits was so sudden it is referred to as an "explosion".
So, since it is "referred to" as an explosion in geological terms, you liken it to modern ordnance. That's silly. I thought you said that you accepted the 'billions of years' concept. Now you want to have it both ways, yes? There were probably billions of years in the history of life prior to the Cambrian Period.
And another odd thing happened during this "explosion" - virtually all the animal pyhla that have ever existed appeared. Funny that.
Do you have any idea what we mean by 'Phyla'? What about other Orders and Classes, etc.? Where were the mammals for instance? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
In other words, Darwin pinned his hopes on imagined fossil evidence, not existing fossil evidence. That's strikes me as a rather odd approach to developing a scientific theory.
Or perhaps he was proposing an explanation for the known fossil record at the time. I'm not sure why he would be 'hoping' for anything. Perhaps you are projecting your own predilection for an agenda on other people. I've noticed that you often do that.
I very much doubt if the the Wiki article is using "sudden appearance" as a human colloquialism.
That's what I said...
Nevertheless, I understand your rationalisation - the last thing your average fanatical evolutionist (esp the atheist variety) wants to hear is that "The sudden appearance of most species in the geological record - from their initial appearance to their extinction - has long been noted." That's what one might call an "inconvenient truth".
Or it could be that the transition was not 'sudden' in the kind of terms that you think. As an average, anti-science fanatic, of course.
I'm not aware of any evidence in the fossil record that represents an inconvenience to any of my personal philosophical convictions.
That wasn't my question.
Some of the points made by YEC sites are valid, imo.
Sure, when they say that jaguars are mammals, I agree.
I don't believe I have. I'm not aware of any evolutionist who considers the fossil record to be "an embarrassment to evolution" - God forbid,that would be heresy!
Then why do you take 'evolutionist' comments out of context in order to support your agenda?
Even with PE factored in, the fossil record is still going to one of gradualism. I mean, PE isn't going to produce huge jumps in the morphology of organisms.
First of all, let me congratulate you on being such an expert on the rate of evolution over the last 4 billion years. But who says that PE is going to produce 'huge jumps' in morphology? What is a 'huge jump'?
This is perfectly understandable if you have a deep-seated phychological need (eg, atheism) to stick your head in the sand.
Once again, you ascribe motivations to me just as you did to Darwin above.Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? The evolution of birds from dinosaurs, for example, should have produced innumerable transitional fossils - where are they? Okay, first of all what is this about 'innumerable' transitional fossils? Does that compare to the huge amount of data you have to support your explanation of the fossil record? Oh ... wait! You don't have an explanation, do you? That's convenient for you. You can just sit there and complain about the generations of actual researchers who went out in the field and actually worked on the subject. That makes sense to me! And be honest now. You will never be satisfied no matter how many transitional fossils we would present, including an 'innumerable' number.
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682.
Well, there you have it. Gould mentions a 'geological moment'. What do you think that means? He also talks about 'gradualism' against which he was arguing for the validity of his PE theory. However, even if gradualism were dead (which Gould did not believe), PE is still evolution.
"Since the so called Cambrian Explosion ... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record." Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990.
Okay. First of all what do you think Gould meant by 'so-called'? Could it be that he thought it was not really an explosion? And so what about the origin of all major Phyla? Where are all of the Classes and Orders? Where are the mammals for instance? Some of us have asked you this before. Are you incapable of answering?
"The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life" - S. J. Gould.
Indeed, but so what? First of all we know that he didn't think it was an instantaneous event. Second, Gould had accepted a number of evolutionary theories explaining the 'explosion'.
... "the paucity of fossils before the great Cambrian "explosion" 600 million years ago is perhaps the outstanding fact and frustration of my career" - the Panda's Thumb, p.219
And? Did you read on to see if there were any explanations for this? In particular, did you read about all of the life forms that did exist before the Cambrian? These are rhetorical questions, of course. I doubt that you have read beyond the extracted statement in the YEC quote-mine collection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
1. My conviction that there is a Creator has nothing to do with magic - it is a reasonable and logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.
Are you talking about the evidence that you have never presented here? And how would you know scientific evidence anyway?
2. I believe creation explains a great deal.
So does magic.
Science is actually very limited when it comes to the big picture.
Compared to magic, yes.
1. All the evidence points to evolution? Oh yeah ... except for the gaps, missing links and the sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms!
So, a lack of knowledge is your evidence. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
Oh, and let's not forget all those major morphological changes that cannot be explained by evolution without producing fits of laughter (for example, how a double-circulation heart evolved from a single-circulation heart and how whales evolved from a rodent).
I can see that you are easily amused. So, it looks like denial is the rest of your evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. 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