Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
You flip between common descent and universal common descent interchangeable. But they aren't the same thing. Which is why I asked you earlier for clarity.
Universal common descent has been proved by evidence up to a certain point beyond which gene transferal may have been horizontal, this is unknown.
You are taking the conclusion of a huge amount of research which is of a common ancestor roughly 3.9 billion years ago and then asking why the conclusion isnt of direct practical use right this second.
It is like asking why the big bang isn't of direct practical use.
Please just purchase a book on evolution which was not written by a creationist. Gould is very popular.
Scientists, biologists, doctors, etc aren't all fools or trying to conspire against you. As evidence that they aren't all fools there are countless examples of scientific progress making your life better right now. The results speak for themselves. Evolution is part of their methodology. If it wasn't functional they wouldn't be making all these advances. As evidence of non functional beliefs producing zero advances I give you creationism.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
What do you mean by "comparative approaches"?
I know there's a difference. Hundreds of different dog breeds descended from the wolf - that is an example of common descent, but that is different to the Darwinian concept of UCD.Those comparisons require common descent. Common descent is proved by evidence and predicted by evolution. If you arbitrarily remove common decent then you don't have evolution.
You flip between common descent and universal common descent interchangeable. But they aren't the same thing. Which is why I asked you earlier for clarity.
Irrelevant to the OP.Universal common descent has been proved by evidence up to a certain point beyond which gene transferal may have been horizontal, this is unknown.
No, I'm not. I'm asking for a practical use for such a conclusion.You are taking the conclusion of a huge amount of research which is of a common ancestor roughly 3.9 billion years ago and then asking why the conclusion isnt of direct practical use right this second.
So you admit the Darwinan interpretation of the history of life has no practical use in applied science?It is like asking why the big bang isn't of direct practical use.
Gould? Are you kidding? He spent a lifetime writing vast volumes of theory that was 100% useless! Why would I want to read such useless, irrelevant thoughts?Please just purchase a book on evolution which was not written by a creationist. Gould is very popular.
[/quote]Scientists, biologists, doctors, etc aren't all fools or trying to conspire against you. As evidence that they aren't all fools there are countless examples of scientific progress making your life better right now. The results speak for themselves. Evolution is part of their methodology. If it wasn't functional they wouldn't be making all these advances. As evidence of non functional beliefs producing zero advances I give you creationism.
[/quote]
In other words, you can't provide a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
If you insist that the work of Stephen Gould is 100% useless (despite obviously having no knowledge of his work) then what can I actually do? I am a long long way from knowing a fraction about biology and evolution than Gould did. No one on this forum has a fraction of his expertise. If you find that useless then I struggle to think of anything that you would find useful.
Indeed your argumentative style and extreme unreasonableness and dismissiveness have nothing to do with the question/s you are asking.
Can I ask you a question? Maybe you can be honest for the first time on this forum and actually answer it. If you went back to your congregation and carefully explained that evolution is obviously correct and that creationism is obviously made up how would they react? I assume you would be out on your ear. I don't know your personal situation but I guess you would lose parents? other family members? Your spouse? Your children? Your friends? Your whole community?
I can only assume that this must cause you extreme stress. I suggest you either decide that reality is more important and take the plunge and hope for the best, and learn a lot about yourself and your family/friends. Or that you leave this topic completely alone. The faux interest is getting absolutely no one anywhere. You should learn to deal directly with your problems.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
Seriously why ask questions about a topic which you already know everything about? It can only be this schism which forces you on.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
Ostensibly, he seems to be saying that it should not be made because it's not useful. But he's really just looking for novel angles from which to have a go at people he regards as "evolutionists".barata wrote:Are you saying that this extrapolation should not be made? Or are you simply saying that it's not useful?
Barata, you suddenly seem to have started talking clearly and plainly. I now know what your basic position is on this whole subject. Well done.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
I honestly had no idea if you were supporting evolution or not. But now it seems pretty clear.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
You've lost me again. I'm not sure what your purpose is in quoting a snippet from one of my previous posts without saying that's what you're doing. Do you have a comment to make on what I said?barata wrote:The idea was to speed up the process of developing new drugs for treating various medical conditions, because traditional processes can take many years, cost millions of dollars and use lots of animal testing.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
No, it doesn't work like that - you made the claim that knowledge of DNA is furthered by comparisons, so the onus is on you to back up your claim with an explanation ... or by at least providing a link to an explanation.Eduk wrote: ↑November 29th, 2018, 8:16 amI suggest you research this evolution thing which you have heard so little about. And then you would be able to answer all your questions yourself. It's impossible for me to force feed you knowledge, if you don't know how our knowledge of DNA is furthered by comparison then look it up. I have explained that it does, this is a practical use of common ancestory.
It may well be "a practical use of common ancestry" but I would bet my bottom dollar it isn't dependent on the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life or on human evolution.
Name one useful thing Gould contributed to applied science.If you insist that the work of Stephen Gould is 100% useless (despite obviously having no knowledge of his work) then what can I actually do? I am a long long way from knowing a fraction about biology and evolution than Gould did. No one on this forum has a fraction of his expertise. If you find that useless then I struggle to think of anything that you would find useful.
{quote]Indeed your argumentative style and extreme unreasonableness and dismissiveness have nothing to do with the question/s you are asking.[/quote]
In other words, you can't provide an example of a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life or for human evolution.
Give me one of example of my dishonesty.Maybe you can be honest for the first time on this forum and actually answer it.
Catholics are free to accept the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life.If you went back to your congregation and carefully explained that evolution is obviously correct and that creationism is obviously made up how would they react? I assume you would be out on your ear. I don't know your personal situation but I guess you would lose parents? other family members? Your spouse? Your children? Your friends? Your whole community?
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
In other words, you can't provide a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life or even for human evolution.Eduk wrote: ↑November 29th, 2018, 8:16 amI can only assume that this must cause you extreme stress. I suggest you either decide that reality is more important and take the plunge and hope for the best, and learn a lot about yourself and your family/friends. Or that you leave this topic completely alone. The faux interest is getting absolutely no one anywhere. You should learn to deal directly with your problems.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
In other words, you can't provide an example of a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life or even for human evolution.Eduk wrote: ↑November 29th, 2018, 8:32 amlol I just read why you are so ridiculously anti Gould. I only name dropped him because I know how well respected he is so your comment was very odd to me. I didn't realise the work he had done to keep religion out of science class rooms. It must stick in your craw that this thing which you know to be absolutely true somehow gets proved in a court of law to be made up nonsense. I assume your conclusion is not that what you believe is indeed made up nonsense but that instead all these law courts and scientists must actually be conspiring against you. Seriously why ask questions about a topic which you already know everything about? It can only be this schism which forces you on.
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
That extrapolation can be made - is it not a crime - but such an extrapolation has no practical use in applied science, where it is completely irrelevant.barata wrote: ↑November 29th, 2018, 1:16 pmEvolution is the basis of Biology and an understanding of Biology is useful in medicine. The idea that life has become more diverse and complex since it first arose and that it started with simpler, smaller organisms is an extrapolation from current evidence, with the application of that theory. Are you saying that this extrapolation should not be made? Or are you simply saying that it's not useful?
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
How does the information that all life on earth evolved from microbes that existed billions of years ago - or even the information that humans and primates share a common ancestor - help "speed up the process of developing new drugs for testing various medical conditions"?
P.S. You must have recently discovered "Google Translate".
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?
Im sure this is somehow not a satisfactory answer though.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023