Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

All you’ve given me here is some useless evolutionary talk about what might have happened “six million years ago”. How does such speculation amount to a practical use?

It doesn't.

To you.

Thank you for your opinion.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Sarah Bellum writes: Most likely, a dentist doesn't refer to Darwin's work in between taking X-rays and pulling wisdom teeth, though the idea of evolution might be interesting to a dentist wondering why more people are born with fewer wisdom teeth now than in the past.

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.

But then, a dentist's work isn't dealing with patterns of disease mutation, relative virulence of parasites, handling drug or pesticide resistance, selective breeding ("artificial" selection finds knowledge of "natural" selection useful!), evaluation of possible hazards from genetically modified crops, preservation of endangered species, understanding of gene function (if you know the pattern of descent it helps in learning about genes with still-unknown function), development of biological strains to decompose hazardous materials, genetic algorithms or similar areas of science and technology.

… 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.

Your discussion of chemistry doesn't make any sense. Yes, a chemist could work with the Periodic Table and at the same time try to imagine that those symbols didn't really represent "elements" but merely compounds with various properties. Mercury, for instance, the chemist (alchemist?) might think of as a combination of water and fire, with a little earth in it to give it weight. But a chemist thinking that way would be no different from people working on the tasks described in the previous paragraph trying to hold in their minds the notion that living organisms didn't really evolve.

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.

As for "atheistic beliefs", remember that plenty of religious believers have no problem with the history of life on Earth being one of evolution (variation and natural selection).

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.

Finally, when you say, "The Darwinian explanation for the history of life is not 'knowledge' - it is a theory that cannot ever be put to the test" you say something untrue. For example, the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs can be put to the test. You may not be able to travel back in time to view the generational change, but you can find Archaeopteryx.

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.

If you claim that knowledge about the past isn't knowledge, then you might have an uncomfortable time talking with, for example, archaeologists digging around Jerusalem or Jericho or the Dead Sea.

Silly “ straw man” argument.

Whatever … I’m not interested in debating your pointless analogies.

And some of us are not interested in debating your pointless assertions.

Try giving me facts instead, such as practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

Give us a reason why anyone here should bother to give you facts.

Dredge writes: ... practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

You really should stop talking about Darwin. Do you consider the Wright Brothers the epitome of aviation?

... such as practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

It tells us who we are.

Enjoy

It tells us who we are.

Most of us, yes.

Certain others require a course in faecal recognition for that.

edge writes: As previously shown, you have no need for explanations

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.

nor do you have any

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?

nor do you care

I don't care about scientific theories that can ever be tested and could be dead wrong.

However, some people find explanations useful

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.

edge writes: So, why do you insinuate the mice would be better than chimp-based research? The abstract to your linked article says nothing about mice.

Huh?

I might also point out that the article was written by a member of the Anti-Vivisection Society. I don't suppose he would have an agenda, would you?

Which part of the paper is incorrect?

And speaking of “an agenda”, 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.

I'm sure that dwise was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. I can see why you would want to avoid that point ...

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.

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.

And your opinion means what?

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, 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.

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?

Did anyone say that?

Strawman much?

I don't care about scientific theories that can ever be tested and could be dead wrong.

But you do care about UN-scientific theories that are untestable and could be wrong.

Sure, that makes sense.

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.

According to you. The person who doesn't care about explanations.

You are fount of common sense today.

Huh?

Repeating my question doesn't help.

You are the one who brought mice into the discussion.

Which part of the paper is incorrect?

I have no idea. The point is that you provide a source that has an obvious agenda.

And speaking of “an agenda”, 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.

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.

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, what is your point?

So the Darwinist interpretation of that history is as useless and irrelevant to applied science as my (or any) creationist interpretation.

So, you aren't worried about conformity with reality or any such minor detail, yes? Your opinion is of no consequence.

So, you aren't worried about conformity with reality or any such minor detail, yes?

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.

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?

So, why do you insinuate the mice would be better than chimp-based research? The abstract to your linked article says nothing about mice. I might also point out that the article was written by a member of the Anti-Vivisection Society. I don't suppose he would have an agenda, would you?

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:

---

Legislation banning experimentation on chimpanzees has been implemented largely due to ethical concerns — namely, that research with chimpanzees causes extreme pain and suffering to animals with very highly developed cognitive and emotional capacities. This rationale is being increasingly augmented by a burgeoning scientific argument — that data from chimpanzee experiments are flawed and invalid with regard to human medicine, and that superior alternatives, with greater human relevance, do exist.

. . .

Only by moving away from chimpanzee research, and by fully embracing and adopting superior human-specific alternatives, can treatments or cures for the many diseases that blight the lives of hundreds of millions of people be realised quickly and safely.

---

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.

 
We should note that there are several factors that are considered when choosing which kind of experimental animal to use. Besides suitability for the type of experiment, there's also the cost of the animals (especially of a large number of them will be used) and the degree of difficulty in handling and caring for them.
Certainly, chimps are costly and difficult to handle, so if a different subject animal would be cheaper and easier to work with (eg, dogs, lab rats, lab mice) then those other animals would be a more attractive alternative.

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.

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.

I found evidence for your alien theory

http://www.uclick.com/client/spi/nq/2019/07/18/

Non Sequitur by Wiley