|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.
Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed. It's all nothing but theory. And you get distant genetic relationships also by assuming the ToE, otherwise you'd have to explain it more realistically. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.5 |
Faith writes: I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible. And yet we all remember that you have never shown anything of the kind. You made up a fantasy with no supporting evidence. Your failure is absolute.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
quote: No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction.
quote: Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear. Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one.
quote: That’s just silly. Gene sequences aren’t assumed nor do assumptions make the matches between them appear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Faith writes: But it's been claimed the ToE is useful and I'm saying no it isn't. Well that's just silly. Of course the ToE is useful, it explains how life on earth developed. What could be more useful?
I'm also saying it isn't even useful as knowledge. Well it very obviously is useful but why would anyone care if it wasn't?
Darwin's pigeon breeding is very interesting too but it doesn't prove the ToE it only proves built-in variability. When the pigeons are released from controlled reproductive isolation they revert to pretty much their original form. They obviously have pigeon genetics and only pigeon genetics and all the variations lead nowhere except to different varieties of pigeons. When you select a trait and isolate your breeders to emphasize that trait, that trait will become elaborate in the offspring. It's a pigeon trait, it goes nowhere except to a variety of pigeon. Lenski's endless experiments never produced anything but e coli. There is absolutely NO evidence for the ToE AT ALL, NONE!!!! All of that is knowledge, even if you're right.
So we don't even get knowledge, What do you think knowledge is? I think it's factual information that can be demonstrated to be true. You don't ever see a qualifyer that it also has to be useful. My neighbour's PhD showed that nothing he was researching was correct. That's also knowledge.
It's false but it keeps on being believed against the utter absense of any corroborating evidence. That's just your religeous bias and has nothing to do with knowledge.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Because you can't. I'm right. Not answering a question doesn't make you right. Is there a practical use to knowledge? Yes, it helps us understand things so we don't have to rely on mythology and made up fantasies. If YOU don't find that practical, then tough bananas, because I do. Now are you going to post another 50 posts on this nonsense? In which case you prove AZPaul's point in spades covered in molasses. Enjoy ps -- happy turkey dayby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
I can't think of anything for chemistry myself. Think protein folding, via proteomics, via genomics, via evolution.
That'd be a lousy answer from Faith to any question and it seems a lousy answer to me here. Yes, it would be. I don't give a shit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
AZP writes: NNed writes: I can't think of anything for chemistry myself. Think protein folding, via proteomics, via genomics, via evolution. Sure way to win an argument is by talking technical gobbledygook. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course the ToE is useful, it explains how life on earth developed. What could be more useful? Lots of myths explain how life on earth developed. The only way an explanation is real knowledge is if it's true and the ToE is not, it's just another myth.
Faith writes: Tangle writes: Darwin's pigeon breeding is very interesting too but it doesn't prove the ToE it only proves built-in variability. When the pigeons are released from controlled reproductive isolation they revert to pretty much their original form. They obviously have pigeon genetics and only pigeon genetics and all the variations lead nowhere except to different varieties of pigeons. When you select a trait and isolate your breeders to emphasize that trait, that trait will become elaborate in the offspring. It's a pigeon trait, it goes nowhere except to a variety of pigeon. Lenski's endless experiments never produced anything but e coli. There is absolutely NO evidence for the ToE AT ALL, NONE!!!! All of that is knowledge, even if you're right. Of course it's knowledge, it just isn't knowledge due to the ToE. It COULD be knowledge that verifies creationism, and I believe it does.
What do you think knowledge is? I think it's factual information that can be demonstrated to be true. Me too. (With the exception of the kind of knowedge I was just writing to Straggler about on another thread, knowledge derived through faith in the Biblical revelation. But that's not relevant here beyond being an exception to the general statement.)
You don't ever see a qualifyer that it also has to be useful. My neighbour's PhD showed that nothing he was researching was correct. That's also knowledge. Yes but I'm not the one claiming the ToE is useful. The OP says it is not and I agree, but others here have disagreed and I'm answering them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
PK writes: Faith writes: I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible. No. You have never shown it. You have repeatedly asserted it, but the fact is that mutation does increase genetic variability, so it never runs out short of extinction. I've explained how any genetic increase -- which would include beneficial mutations if they actually existed in the necessary numbers, which they don't -- would meet the same fate as any allele in such a situation, ending up as fixed loci from which further variation is impossible. Once you have fixed loci for a great number of traits you have this situation that further evolution is effectively impossible. Even if you get a single mutation that is passed on it is a trivial change that is hardly cause for optimism for any change on the scale required by the ToE. Fixed loci are essentially the end of the evolutionary road. And this is where an evolving line has to end up. In the same condition as the cheetah and the elephant seals, and the fact that they got there a lot faster doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation, and if mutation could provide the basis for further variation that might save either from extinction it would have by now. Evolution defeats evolution: it "spends" genetic diversity in order to produce new phenotypes, and if this trend continues to its logical extreme that's the end of evolutiion for that line of variation. And that has to be the definition of the boundary of the Kind: where evolution stops for lack of genetic diversity.
Nested hierrarchy and transitional fossils are simply interpreted to support the ToE but there is no ACTUAL evidence of such a relationship, it's merely assumed. Of course they are evidence of evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary theory predicts that transitional fossils will exist, and they do. If life were really a collection of unrelated kinds we would not expect any to exist - the gaps between kinds should be clear. But if they aren't they aren't, or they are except that onfirmation bias has prevented this from being seen. Transitional fossils do not occur in anywhere near the numbers Darwin himself said would be necessary to prove his theory. You have a very scanty collection, and there is no reason to think of them as anything but variations on a Kind, or another Kind unto itself.
Likewise unrelated kinds should fall into a collection of discrete trees, not one big one. According to the ToE though, which is self-confirming. In any case the FACT, and it is a fact, that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity in the formation of new phenotypes, means none of these other considerations carry any weight at all. Evolution beyond variation within the Kind can't happen. Period. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Now are you going to post another 50 posts on this [?] I certainly hope not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
quote: First, the necessary number is very, very low. Second, neutral mutations will do. Third, there are cases where selection will preserve variation. Finally - and most importantly - your argument proves you wrong. If evolutionary change cannot happen the population cannot genetically change. But a new allele has appeared and taken over the population. Evolution HAS occurred. And it can happen again. It happened therefore it couldn’t is a ridiculous argument. But here you are making it. The only thing it proves is your irrationality.
quote: It’s a slowdown, not a stop. And the evidence indicates that it hasn’t got near that stage yet.
quote: The fact that other species haven’t gotten there is evidence that it won’t happen to everything - or, at worst, that it will take a long, long time to happen. Your claims about timescales are just your assumptions.
quote: So the boundary is a theoretical limit that hasn’t occurred yet - and there is still no evidence of separate kinds on Earth.
quote: They don’t exist in the numbers we would expect if the fossil record was complete - but we know it isn’t. Worse for you the missing fossils are mostly those you would call within kind evolution - fossils showing the transition from one species to another. But we do have plenty of fossils linking larger taxonomic groups -for instance dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians. To blithely assume that these are just variations in a kind and not evidence of an actual relationship is to blind yourself to the evidence.
quote: Wrong on both counts. Evolution should form nested hierarchies but there is no reason for independent creations to form a nested hierarchy. We don’t need the ToE to tell us the latter.
quote: It is not a FACT that the processes of evolution use up genetic diversity. The evidence says that it hasn’t, that there are no separate kinds and your theoretical speculations can’t defeat evidence. Build your castles in the air if you like, but the real science will just ignore them, as it should.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Faith writes: Lots of myths explain how life on earth developed. They sure do. And, as you say, they're myths.
The only way an explanation is real knowledge is if it's true and the ToE is not, it's just another myth. The difference betwen myth and fact is that fact can be demonstrated objectively to be true. For example your belief that the world is 6,000 years old is a myth proven wrong by objective evidence. The ToE is the most empirically supported theory in science. Your religious beliefs can have no baring on objective facts - ie knowledge.
Of course it's knowledge, it just isn't knowledge due to the ToE. It COULD be knowledge that verifies creationism, and I believe it does. So publish and show us all wrong. Collect you $1m pize and go down in history forever.
Yes but I'm not the one claiming the ToE is useful. The OP says it is not and I agree, but others here have disagreed and I'm answering them. You're making a right mess of it too. The OP is asking about the usefulness of finding the common ancestor, not the usefulness of the ToE. The finding of a common ancestor would be knowledge and knowledge is useful for its own sake. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 226 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
dredge writes: Luckily for humanity no form of the earth sciences even claims that.
I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe... dredge writes: Maybe it's because you don't have a clue what science is? That's why.
... that existed billions of years ago, but can't find any. dredge writes: That's what happens when you are ignorant enough to believe that Periods are layers despite having been corrected multiple times. It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
When I had an internet connection at home, I was connected to the World Community Grid, which uses the idle time of members' computers to do tedious scientific calculations. They had mine doing protein folding. Sure way to win an argument is by talking technical gobbledygook. Proteins are large, complex molecules that can fold into various shapes (think Tinker-Toys). The parts that "stick out" determine how the protein interacts with its environment, so the different shapes that it can have are very important, particularly to medicine. We understand your difficulties with vision, so maybe you can't learn these things for yourself, but it's downright stupid of you to proclaim something "useless" when you haven't even bothered to understand it.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have misattributed those quotes to me, but it is dredge who said them. Please correct.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024