Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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: 2251
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, 2:57 pm

Genetic engineering requires knowledge of DNA. Knowledge of DNA has been furthered with comparitive approaches. 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.
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.
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 29th, 2018, 7:44 am

Eduk wrote:
November 28th, 2018, 2:57 pm
Genetic engineering requires knowledge of DNA. Knowledge of DNA has been furthered with comparitive approaches.
What do you mean by "comparative approaches"?
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.
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.
Universal common descent has been proved by evidence up to a certain point beyond which gene transferal may have been horizontal, this is unknown.
Irrelevant to the OP.
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.
No, I'm not. I'm asking for a practical use for such a conclusion.
It is like asking why the big bang isn't of direct practical use.
So you admit the Darwinan interpretation of the history of life has no practical use in applied science?
Please just purchase a book on evolution which was not written by a creationist. Gould is very popular.
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?

[/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.

Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

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

Post by Eduk » November 29th, 2018, 8:16 am

I 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. Whether you recognise this or not is irrelevant, as you are so fond of saying.
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.
Unknown means unknown.

Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

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

Post by Eduk » November 29th, 2018, 8:32 am

lol 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.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
barata
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

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

Post by barata » November 29th, 2018, 1:16 pm

Evolution 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?

Steve3007
Posts: 5627
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 29th, 2018, 6:40 pm

barata wrote:Are you saying that this extrapolation should not be made? Or are you simply saying that it's not useful?
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, you suddenly seem to have started talking clearly and plainly. I now know what your basic position is on this whole subject. Well done.

User avatar
barata
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

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

Post by barata » November 29th, 2018, 11:47 pm

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.

Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

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

Post by Eduk » November 30th, 2018, 4:48 am

Barata you read like a completely different person. Not sure if you are using Google traslate, but whatever, it is working.
I honestly had no idea if you were supporting evolution or not. But now it seems pretty clear.
Unknown means unknown.

Steve3007
Posts: 5627
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 30th, 2018, 5:21 am

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.
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?

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » December 2nd, 2018, 10:39 am

Eduk wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 8:16 am
I 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.
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.
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.
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.
Name one useful thing Gould contributed to applied science.

{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.
Maybe you can be honest for the first time on this forum and actually answer it.
Give me one of example of my dishonesty.
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?
Catholics are free to accept the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » December 2nd, 2018, 10:41 am

Eduk wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 8:16 am
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.
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.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » December 2nd, 2018, 10:44 am

Eduk wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 8:32 am
lol 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.
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.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » December 2nd, 2018, 10:49 am

barata wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 1:16 pm
Evolution 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?
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.

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

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

Post by Romanz1 » December 2nd, 2018, 10:56 am

barata wrote:
November 29th, 2018, 11:47 pm
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.
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".

Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

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

Post by Eduk » December 2nd, 2018, 10:57 am

Wikipedia, which you have free access to, lists puncutated equilibrium as Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology. Developed with Niles Eldredge.
Im sure this is somehow not a satisfactory answer though.
Unknown means unknown.

Post Reply