The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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 28th, 2018, 4:21 am

Barata. While I agree that meaning is much more important than grammar there is a point where your meaning is unknown due to poor grammer.
I don't actually know what you are trying to say. For example I can't tell if it is those who believe in evolution who are brainwashed or those who don't.
So perhaps it's worth taking some time.
Unknown means unknown.

Steve3007
Posts: 5727
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 28th, 2018, 5:18 am

Barata, I'm with Eduk on this one. I carefully read your most recent post and I quite like the odd grammar, but I can't work out who it is you are criticising and what all that stuff about grandfathers is about.

Have you considered writing in your native language and then copying the whole thing into Google Translate? It would be interesting to see how well that works.

As an example, here is this post translated into French, using Google Translate:


Barata, je suis avec Eduk sur celui-ci. J'ai lu attentivement votre dernier message et j'aime bien la grammaire, mais je ne peux pas savoir qui vous critiquez ni ce que sont ces choses sur les grands-pères.

Avez-vous envisagé d'écrire dans votre langue maternelle, puis de copier le tout dans Google Translate? Il serait intéressant de voir si cela fonctionne bien.

Steve3007
Posts: 5727
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 28th, 2018, 5:25 am

I particularly enjoyed the observation that "Rascals are concerned with grammar".

Steve3007
Posts: 5727
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 28th, 2018, 11:59 am

Romanz1 wrote: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.
The above was a reply to Eduk, but I hope you don't mind me commenting.

It seems odd that you refer to "evolutionists" as if you are not one yourself. In this topic, you seem to have already stated that you believe the conclusions of the Theory of Evolution, regarding the origins of life, and that those conclusions are interesting. You just don't regard them as useful for what you regard as practical purposes. So you are an evolutionist, in the sense that you believe the factual claims that derive from that theory, aren't you? Or, to be an evolutionist, does one have to believe in the practical utility of the factual claims of a theory? If, for example, I can't find any practical use for the General Theory of Relativity, does that mean I'm not a General Relativist? Even if I believe it to be a factually accurate theory?
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.
That's an interesting way to look at it. The world could have been create one second ago in such a way that it looks as though it was created 4.5 billion years ago. Humans and mice might have been created in their current forms in such a way that it looks as though they share a common ancestor.

Would you regard these as useful ideas to entertain? If they are philosophically interesting, would you regard that as a use?

Do you think there might be a role for Occam's razor in this? If the world looks like it is more than one second old and mice look as though they have a common ancestor with humans, why not just go with it?

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

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

Post by barata » November 28th, 2018, 12:43 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 5:18 am
Barata, I'm with Eduk on this one. I carefully read your most recent post and I quite like the odd grammar, but I can't work out who it is you are criticising and what all that stuff about grandfathers is about.

Have you considered writing in your native language and then copying the whole thing into Google Translate? It would be interesting to see how well that works.

As an example, here is this post translated into French, using Google Translate:


Barata, je suis avec Eduk sur celui-ci. J'ai lu attentivement votre dernier message et j'aime bien la grammaire, mais je ne peux pas savoir qui vous critiquez ni ce que sont ces choses sur les grands-pères.

Avez-vous envisagé d'écrire dans votre langue maternelle, puis de copier le tout dans Google Translate? Il serait intéressant de voir si cela fonctionne bien.
sorry sir im out of logic and reasoning. you won i lost. so i quit. for there is no meaning in beating those horses who are already dead ( like you ) there is no gain in wasting time in this way.

and i was just passing the damn time. ( with your farce ) for it is fun ( indeed ) :lol:

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 12:55 pm

barata wrote:
November 27th, 2018, 11:29 pm
amazingly brainwashed people are. and how can you take words of an failure ? for those who are telling about evolution are all failures.
It depends what you mean by "evolution", for in the biological sciences is refers to facts, such as a change in gene frequency within a population. On the other hand, the 'information' that humans and other primates share a common ancestor (macro-evolution) is useless in any practical sense.

Steve3007
Posts: 5727
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 28th, 2018, 12:56 pm

barata wrote:sorry sir im out of logic and reasoning. you won i lost. so i quit. for there is no meaning in beating those horses who are already dead ( like you ) there is no gain in wasting time in this way.

and i was just passing the damn time. ( with your farce ) for it is fun ( indeed ) :lol:
It sounds like you're saying that you're not going to be posting any more. That's a pity. I still don't know what you've been trying to say or what it is that you think I've won. Never mind. Adios.

Steve3007
Posts: 5727
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 28th, 2018, 12:58 pm

Romanz1 wrote:It depends what you mean by "evolution", for in the biological sciences is refers to facts, such as a change in gene frequency within a population. On the other hand, the 'information' that humans and other primates share a common ancestor (macro-evolution) is useless in any practical sense.
So you've said. But you've also said that doesn't stop it from being true and it doesn't stop it from being interesting, haven't you? Is being true and interesting a practical use?

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, 1:05 pm

On the other hand, the 'information' that humans and other primates share a common ancestor (macro-evolution) is useless in any practical sense.
Knowledge of spoons is useless. I can't eat soup with knowledge of a spoon.
Unknown means unknown.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 1:46 pm

Eduk wrote:
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.
What evidence do you have that is was the concept of Universal Common Ancestry that led scientists to using mice for testing?
I imagine mice would have been used for testing long before their genetics were known, because they are mammals, cheap, plentiful and considered nothing but pests.
If the scientific consensus a hundred odd years ago was that animals were kinds and God did it. Then we wouldnt have modern biology.
... yet you can't provide even one example of a practical use in modern applied biology that owes its existence to the information that life on earth evolved from microbes.
We wouldn't have discovered DNA or known what it did. Plus countless other advances.
How did the discovery of DNA and its function depend on the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor. or even the belief that humans evolved from a hominid?
Name one advance in applied biology that depends on the concept of UCA.
.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 1:51 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 5:25 am
I particularly enjoyed the observation that "Rascals are concerned with grammar".
Yes, I found that one interesting as well!

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 2:03 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 11:59 am
In this topic, you seem to have already stated that you believe the conclusions of the Theory of Evolution, regarding the origins of life
You could have fooled me.
to be an evolutionist, does one have to believe in the practical utility of the factual claims of a theory?
No.

IPlease note that none of your post actually has anything to do with the OP.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 2:07 pm

barata wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 12:43 pm
sorry sir im out of logic and reasoning. you won i lost. so i quit. for there is no meaning in beating those horses who are already dead ( like you ) there is no gain in wasting time in this way. and i was just passing the damn time. ( with your farce ) for it is fun ( indeed ) :lol:
Are saying you don't accept that all life on earth evolved from a microbe?

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 2:10 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 12:58 pm
So you've said. But you've also said that doesn't stop it from being true and it doesn't stop it from being interesting, haven't you?
Yes
Is being true and interesting a practical use?
No.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » November 28th, 2018, 2:15 pm

Eduk wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 1:05 pm
On the other hand, the 'information' that humans and other primates share a common ancestor (macro-evolution) is useless in any practical sense.
Knowledge of spoons is useless. I can't eat soup with knowledge of a spoon.
An irrelevant analogy is not a practical use in applied science for the information that humans and primates share a common ancestor.

Post Reply