The January Philosophy Book of the Month 2019 is The Runaway Species. Discuss The Runaway Species now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.) Discuss The Fourth Age now.

Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Eduk » November 24th, 2018, 5:58 pm

I agree. In biology, "evolution" refers to facts such as mutations, natural selection, changes is gene frequency within a population, horizontal gene transfer - but it doesn't refer to the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA). So yes, evolution is certainly useful in medical science.
Not only are you the arbiter of relevance you are also perfect and the arbiter of the meaning of the word evolution. I guess all the actual biologists got it wrong.
By the way when you talk about UCA are you talking solely about our furthest common ancestor? Or are you ruling out all ancestors. Like do you believe in hereditary diseases? Or do you believe mammals share a common ancestor but not fish? Just trying to make sense of where you decide to draw the line? And what would count as an answer? I mean would the only satisfactory answer be that first ancestor of all life and without that you just aren't going to accept it?
Unknown means unknown.

barata
Posts: 21
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by barata » November 25th, 2018, 4:20 am

is there is no missing link in darwins theory ? huh? is there is no single missing point at all ?

Romanz1
Posts: 41
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Romanz1 » November 25th, 2018, 12:18 pm

barata wrote:
November 25th, 2018, 4:20 am
is there is no missing link in darwins theory ? huh? is there is no single missing point at all ?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Romanz1
Posts: 41
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Romanz1 » November 25th, 2018, 12:40 pm

Eduk wrote:
November 24th, 2018, 5:58 pm
Not only are you the arbiter of relevance you are also perfect and the arbiter of the meaning of the word evolution. I guess all the actual biologists got it wrong.
The scientifically-accepted definition of "evolution" doesn't include the evolutionary history of life from the first microbe. Look it up.

[/quote]By the way when you talk about UCA are you talking solely about our furthest common ancestor? Or are you ruling out all ancestors. Like do you believe in hereditary diseases? Or do you believe mammals share a common ancestor but not fish? Just trying to make sense of where you decide to draw the line? And what would count as an answer? I mean would the only satisfactory answer be that first ancestor of all life and without that you just aren't going to accept it?
[/quote]
The Darwinian interpretation of the history of life starts from the first microbe, but there is no need to go back that far. In the case of humans, for example, as far as the argument is concerned, we only need to go back to the common ancestor of humans and chimps. Our knowledge of human hereditary diseases is confined to our species, in which case it is not Darwinian history. In order to study and treat these hereditary diseases, no one needs to even be aware of the concept of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor. It's irrelevant and offers no practical use.

barata
Posts: 21
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by barata » November 25th, 2018, 1:22 pm

Romanz1 wrote:
November 25th, 2018, 12:18 pm
barata wrote:
November 25th, 2018, 4:20 am
is there is no missing link in darwins theory ? huh? is there is no single missing point at all ?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
i meant to say that is that darwin is missing no point at all in his theories ?

barata
Posts: 21
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by barata » November 25th, 2018, 1:28 pm

JamesOfSeattle wrote:
November 18th, 2018, 2:57 pm
In general it seems that understanding how things work is useful, even if understanding how any particular thing works might never get used. You never know what knowledge might be useful. As for practical use of knowing how life evolved on earth, I can see at least

1. Understanding how to make use of evolution-type techniques, such as genetic algorithms

2. Understanding under what circumstances life naturally evolves, and thus being able to decide whether to expect life in the universe, and especially technical life, to be common or rare. If we expect intelligent life to be common, that would change how we approach preparing for space travel, as opposed to expecting other intelligent life to be rare or non-existent.

*
O dear sir can you tell us name of your 10th grandfather, 10th grandfatehrs, grandfathers name ? if not than i dont understand that how can you tell us something about million and million years ago happened?

when you are actually checked at the name of thise 21st grandfatehrs name ? how can you go beyond him ? that is my `1st question ? how ?

and 2nd thing is where are those intelligent people ? who learns something from an failure ? for you have failed in telling us name of your 21st grandfathre.

but still you ( YOU ) will tell us something which happened million upon million years ago. how ? just explain it ( respected sir ) HOW ? :|

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Eduk » November 26th, 2018, 4:21 am

Romanz.
Evolution is a big multifaceted topic with vast detail. Common decent is part of the theory of evolution. If you think it isn't then please tell me in detail why, for example which respected scientific bodies text books on evolution don't contain common decent. Or even better which say it isn't part of the theory of evolution.
Also not sure why the creationists get so fixated with Darwin. Darwin didn't single handedly come up with the entire theory of evolution. It's debatable whether he came up with any of it. He certainly did a great deal of detailed analysis though which proved evolution beyond all reasonable doubt. Plus the theory of evolution has greatly progressed in the last few hundred years. I believe Darwin thought that pangenesis was a possibility. He made other errors too. Darwin doesn't own evolution. If you are going to attack evolution then instead attack modern science. By the way if its not clear science has a pretty good track record overall, unlike churches.
Oh and regarding hereditary deseases. No our knowledge of hereditary deasesases is not confined to humans. We regularly run experiments on mice because they share many of our genes. There is proof that what works on a mouse might work on a human. If there was no common decent then there would be no reason to suspect this and no reason to try it. This is also a practical use of common decent.
Unknown means unknown.

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Steve3007 » November 26th, 2018, 4:59 am

Romanz1 wrote:The scientifically-accepted definition of "evolution" doesn't include the evolutionary history of life from the first microbe. Look it up.
This comment appears to me to betray a misunderstanding as to how scientific theories work. The phenomena which are described by the theory are not explicitly included, by name, within the central principles of the theory. They are derived from its application. For example, the expression:

F = G m1m2 / r2

together with Newton's laws of motion, when applied, resulted in the fact that when I stood on a grassy knoll in Casper Wyoming, USA, on the afternoon of August 21st 2017, the Sun was covered by the Moon. That fact is not explicitly included in the laws of gravitation and dynamics. They don't mention the Sun, the Moon or Casper Wyoming. But it still derives directly from them.

Likewise, the increasing complexity of life - the gradual spreading out into the "space" of all possible living things - derives directly from the principles of Evolution.

barata
Posts: 21
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by barata » November 26th, 2018, 1:12 pm

indeed sorry but fun is amazing that no one is interested in real facts.

Steve3007
Posts: 5715
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Steve3007 » November 26th, 2018, 3:07 pm

barata wrote:indeed sorry but fun is amazing that no one is interested in real facts.
Hi barata. I think part of the problem is that your sentences have an unusual construction. In what sense do you mean that "fun is amazing"? And what are these "real facts" in which you think nobody is interested?

Romanz1
Posts: 41
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Romanz1 » November 27th, 2018, 3:37 pm

Eduk wrote:
November 26th, 2018, 4:21 am
Evolution is a big multifaceted topic with vast detail. Common decent is part of the theory of evolution. If you think it isn't then please tell me in detail why, for example which respected scientific bodies text books on evolution don't contain common decent. Or even better which say it isn't part of the theory of evolution.
You're barking up the wrong tree here - of course common descent is part of the theory of evolution. but what's that got to do with the OP? For example, which practical use in applied science depends on the information that humans and the other primates share a common ancestor?
Also not sure why the creationists get so fixated with Darwin. Darwin didn't single handedly come up with the entire theory of evolution. It's debatable whether he came up with any of it. He certainly did a great deal of detailed analysis though which proved evolution beyond all reasonable doubt. Plus the theory of evolution has greatly progressed in the last few hundred years. I believe Darwin thought that pangenesis was a possibility. He made other errors too. Darwin doesn't own evolution. If you are going to attack evolution then instead attack modern science. By the way if its not clear science has a pretty good track record overall, unlike churches.
???
Oh and regarding hereditary deseases. No our knowledge of hereditary deasesases is not confined to humans. We regularly run experiments on mice because they share many of our genes. There is proof that what works on a mouse might work on a human. If there was no common decent then there would be no reason to suspect this and no reason to try it. This is also a practical use of common decent.
I encounter this sort of logical fallacy all the time from evolutionists. You make that mistake of conflating a USEFUL FACT with a USELESS CONCLUSION based on that fact. The USEFUL FACT is that humans and mice have similar genetics, which makes mice useful for testing human drugs on. The USELESS CONCLUSION is that humans and mice have similar genetics due to common descent.
Think of it this way, mice are useful for testing human drugs on regardless of what one believes about the history of life - even if everyone believed the world was created one year ago, humans and mice would still have similar genetics and mice would be useful for testing human drugs on.

Romanz1
Posts: 41
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Romanz1 » November 27th, 2018, 3:55 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 26th, 2018, 4:59 am
Romanz1 wrote:The scientifically-accepted definition of "evolution" doesn't include the evolutionary history of life from the first microbe. Look it up.
This comment appears to me to betray a misunderstanding as to how scientific theories work. The phenomena which are described by the theory are not explicitly included, by name, within the central principles of the theory. They are derived from its application. For example, the expression:

F = G m1m2 / r2

together with Newton's laws of motion, when applied, resulted in the fact that when I stood on a grassy knoll in Casper Wyoming, USA, on the afternoon of August 21st 2017, the Sun was covered by the Moon. That fact is not explicitly included in the laws of gravitation and dynamics. They don't mention the Sun, the Moon or Casper Wyoming. But it still derives directly from them.
Likewise, the increasing complexity of life - the gradual spreading out into the "space" of all possible living things - derives directly from the principles of Evolution.
I take your point. Some definitions of "the theory of evolution" that I've come across have included the history of life on earth, but such a conclusion is probably not appropriate in such a definition. So the definition of "evolution" is the same as the definition of "the theory of evolution".

Romanz1
Posts: 41
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 10:15 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Romanz1 » November 27th, 2018, 3:59 pm

barata wrote:
November 26th, 2018, 1:12 pm
indeed sorry but fun is amazing that no one is interested in real facts.
No offence, but would it be fair to assume that English is not your first language?

barata
Posts: 21
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by barata » November 27th, 2018, 11:29 pm

Romanz1 wrote:
November 27th, 2018, 3:59 pm
barata wrote:
November 26th, 2018, 1:12 pm
indeed sorry but fun is amazing that no one is interested in real facts.
No offence, but would it be fair to assume that English is not your first language?
although my english is not very grammatically, rhetorically correct and Rascals are concerned with grammar. Actual workers are concerned with thoughts.

and ( fun is ) you are brainwashed by mass propaganda of british / american media. anyways leave it in side.

and let us come to the point. that how anyone can intelligent person will accept something from an failure ? who is already checked at the name of hsi 10th grandfathers, 10th grandfatehrs, grandfather ? but still fun is people are accepting what he is speaking about things which happened million and million years ago.

how he can speak so factually ? any random nonsense can say i think, perphaps, maybe, by chance, but why i or any intelligent person will take the worlds of the damn idiot who is checked at the name of his 21st grandfatehr ? but still fun is we have to take as for granted nonsense which is coming from him about something which happened million and million years ago.

amazingly brainwashed people are. and how can you take words of an failure ? for those who are telling about evolution are all failures.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Any practical use for Darwin's tree of life?

Post by Eduk » November 28th, 2018, 4:18 am

Romanz you are completely missing the point that I made earlier. Theories such as evolution lead research. They help to decide which theories are more or less likely and which research to undertake.
Why assume a mouse and human have similar genetics unless you test them. Why test them if you have no belief they are similar.
If the scientific consensus a hundred odd years ago was that animals were kinds and God did it. Then we wouldnt have modern biology. We wouldn't have discovered DNA or known what it did. Plus countless other advances.
Unknown means unknown.

Post Reply