|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total) |
| Phat (1 member, 112 visitors)
|
harveyspecter | |
Total: 895,059 Year: 6,171/6,534 Month: 364/650 Week: 134/278 Day: 2/30 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It doesn't. To you. Thank you for your opinion. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 1582 From: Australia Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
You’re talking about the “evolution†within an extant species - which doesn’t require even knowledge of the history of life on earth, let alone the neo-Darwinian explanation of that history.
… none of which require so much as knowledge of the history of life on earth, , let alone the neo-Darwinian explanation of that history. Btw, you’re doing it again - repeating yourself - examples of practical uses for known biological mechanisms is not what I asked for.
Whatever … I’m not interested in debating your pointless analogies. Try giving me facts instead, such as practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.
You missed my point - which was that, as an atheist, you have no choice but to believe that biological evolution was responsible for the history of life on earth.
Fossil indicated that some kind of “evolution†has occurred, but they don’t tell us HOW that “evolution†occurred. So fossils are not a test for the neo-Darwinan theory of evolution - there is no way to test (as in, confirm) what mechanism was responsible for the “evolutionary†history of life on earth.
Silly “ straw man†argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
And some of us are not interested in debating your pointless assertions.
Give us a reason why anyone here should bother to give you facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 19739 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.9 |
You really should stop talking about Darwin. Do you consider the Wright Brothers the epitome of aviation? All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 719 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It tells us who we are. Enjoy by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1330 From: Birmingham, England Joined: Member Rating: 4.2
|
Most of us, yes. Certain others require a course in faecal recognition for that. Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 1582 From: Australia Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Applied science has no need for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth. If it does, it hasn’t appeared in this thread. All I’ve seen so far is a bunch of evolutionist who are having trouble accepting that their Darwinist interpretation of the history of life on earth is nothing more than a useless story.
So what? Will the world stop turning if no one offers a scientific explanation for what was responsible for the history of life on earth?
I don't care about scientific theories that can ever be tested and could be dead wrong.
Yep, the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth is “useful†as a creation story in atheist folklore. But as science, it’s as irrelevant as stories about parallel universes. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 1582 From: Australia Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Huh?
Which part of the paper is incorrect? And speaking of “an agendaâ€, no wonder you want to discredit the author - you’re disappointed that chimps don’t make very good test animals because that fact doesn’t support your cherished belief in common ancestry. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.
Not at all - I can’t think of any practical scientific use for my creationist interpretation of the history of life on earth either. So the Darwinist interpretation of that history is as useless and irrelevant to applied science as my (or any) creationist interpretation. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
And your opinion means what?
So, you go from "Darwinian interpretations" (whatever that means) having no practical application to practical biology, to Darwinian interpretations being useless. Bait and switch much? And you haven't shown either to be the case. That's a major fail.
Did anyone say that? Strawman much?
But you do care about UN-scientific theories that are untestable and could be wrong. Sure, that makes sense.
According to you. The person who doesn't care about explanations. You are fount of common sense today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Repeating my question doesn't help. You are the one who brought mice into the discussion.
I have no idea. The point is that you provide a source that has an obvious agenda.
Actually, it doesn't matter to me at all. If the article is valid, there may be other reasons that you fail to entertain. I will let the biologists handle that question.
So, what is your point?
So, you aren't worried about conformity with reality or any such minor detail, yes? Your opinion is of no consequence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 6833 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 3.5 |
edge, he is a CRP (crazy religious person) who has recurrent voices and visions playing in his head. Reality has no big influence on this one's worries. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member Posts: 826 Joined: |
Your last post was a bit confused. You're willing to say that living creatures evolved. You're fine with the, "known biological mechanisms" of evolution that you concede have a lot of practical uses. You even agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Is your problem with the, "practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth" a dislike for the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs because you can't make a quick buck off the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5180 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8
|
Interestingly, that article does not offer any alternatives, not even use of other lab animals. In the penultimate section, Discussion and Conclusions, the author refers to alternatives, but gives us no hint about them (emphasis added): quote: Just what are these unnamed "superior human-specific alternatives" supposed to be? Is he suggesting experimenting on humans? Is that what Dredge advocates? I'm sure that we learned a lot from the Nazi medicine that we liberated (and from Nazi medical researchers assuming that they were also brought over in operations like Operation Paperclip (no, that was not made up by Marvel Comics)), but ethical and moral cost was still horrendous. It would be very ironic if the author is suggesting we use human experimentation, since much of the case that he makes is based on the ethics of experimenting on chimpanzees. But that begs the question of how suitable those other animals, who are less similar genetically, would be. That article doesn't address the question of whether that are any alternative subjects who have fewer differences that those listed between humans and chimps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Louis Morelli Junior Member (Idle past 1022 days) Posts: 5 From: Newark New Jersey USA Joined: |
Well, I have many suggestions for practical medicine and technology based on my models of LUCA. Comparative anatomy between the first living being (a complete and working eukaryotic cell system) and the last most evolved natural system (the building blocks of galaxies) drive us to build a model of the evolutionary link between the two. I got as model a surprising natural system that works like a perfect machine, almost a perpetuum motor. If mimicked technologically and applied here, we can develop a super-technology and fixing several mortal diseases. But,... neither creationists, neither materialists never thought about it, they will not help me applying it. If you want see the face of LUCA see my website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 719 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I found evidence for your alien theory
http://www.uclick.com/client/spi/nq/2019/07/18/ Non Sequitur by Wiley by 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022