Francis

What do you mean by "cultural"? Besides that, anyone with a vivid imagination could think up an evolutionary explanation for why girls like pink. The beauty of proferring evolutionary "explanations" is, no one has to prove anything - it just has to sound good. Unfortunately, endless, empty talk isn't science. Excellent straw man. I question evolutionary theory, therefore I am "anti-science'.

One can observe a tadpole evolving into a frog in a matter of a few weeks and you doubt macroevolution?!

Well, of course it is - every trait is the result of evolution! ... at least, to anyone who believes in evolution, it is. Why do girls like pink? Evolution. Why do males like sport so much? Evolution. Why are some people smarter/dumber than others? Evolution. Why do people fall in love? Evolution. Why do humans play music? Evolution. Why are there different races? Evolution. Why ... (fill in the blank) ... ? Evolution.

There is no end to questions about how evolution produced this and produced that, but none of the answers can be verified, so I find discussions arising from such questions to be thoroughly pointless, innane and boring. Hypotheses that promise nothing but a dead-end (or more questions) just aren't my cup of tea.

When I was younger I could, but now at 59 I find I can't. No matter, it was a useless "skill" anyway. I can't tell you if I could do it for a prolonged length of time, as I never tried it.

I wouldn't claim to know that the chosen ball is green. I am a practising Catholic. I believe with all my heart, mind and soul that God exists, but do I know that God exists? No, I don't know, because I can't demonstrate it empirically. (I don't even know how I could demonstrate it empirically. Even if I could present God in person to someone, God would then have to demonstrate that he is, in fact, God. I don't even know how he would do that.) So a belief that can't be demonstrated as factual is not knowledge. Can anyone demonstrate that man evolved from a homind via a process of mutations and natural selection? No, I don't think so. So all we have is a theory or a belief, not a demonstrable fact, and therefore in this case we don't have knowledge.

What does this have to do with anything? Is the opinion of one famous scientist evidence of the non-existence of God or gods? Why is his opinion worth more than anyone else's? I couldn't find anything in this article that verifies by experiment that man evolved from a hominid as a result of a process of mutations and natural selection. If I missed it, can you point out where, please?

Are there not theories that can be verified by observation or experiment? Which observation or experiment verifies that man evolved from a hominid as the result of a process of mutation and natural selection? Maybe you're conflating a belief with science.

I find it curious that many evolutionist describe the theory that life evolved from a microbe over millions of years via a process of natural selection as "knowledge". A belief system based on an untestable theory is not different is not knowledge! Knowledge is based on demonstrable facts.

Apparently, back in the days of slavery, blacks were bred (by their white owners) to be big and strong, making them more useful for manual labour. Notice how Olympic sprinters almost always come from countries where their ancestors were slaves - black sprinters from Africa itself are almost unheard of.

Irrelevant to the OP

You seem to be conflating Darwin's tree (which covers the entire history of life on earth - from the first microbe to humans) with a family tree of genus of microbes - a family tree of a genus of organisms is not Darwin's tree . I imagine that knowing the family tree of a genus of microbes could prove practically useful in applied biology, but how has the information that life on earth evolved over millions of years from a microbe proven practically useful in applied biology? Has has the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed millions of years ago - or even that humans and chimps share a common ancestor - proven useful in fighting Ebola, or any disease or illness? "applied science" is technology, yes. Applied biology may be animal and plant breeding, or medical science. My understanding of experimental science is that is concerned with confirming a scientific theory by observation and experiment, but it may not provide any practical, applied, technological use. Applied science can make use of a theory, but some applied science could be the result of simple trial and error. At any rate, "science" includes applied science. The base of Charles Darwin's tree begins with the common ancestor of all life (which he called "1" on his original diagram) and spreads out to include the entire history of life. This is true even though he didn't know exactly what "1" was.

Really? What about applied science? In applied science, they actually DO useful stuff, not just talk about theories. ... or like believing that dogs can be bred as big as a Great Dane, but not believing they can be bred as big as an elephant ... or like believing that humans are running 100 meters faster than they were 50 years ago but not believing that one day humans will run it in one second Yes, but I can't see how ony of them are dependant on Darwin's tree - sorry. Can you explain how just one of the five is dependant on the D-tree? Thank you

It's not important, but it is interesting that so many scientists think Darwin's tree is essential to biology, when it appears that applied biology - by far the most important form of biology - seems to have no need for it at all. No, you weren't wrong, actually - I was wrong! I got the definition of "evolution" mixed up with the definition of "the theory of evolution". Sorry Descent with modification is a fact that doesn't rely on Darwin's tree. Descent with modification would still be a fact even if life on earth were only a week old. Applied science relies on facts, not interpretations of ancient history. They see macroevolution in their labs every day? Yes, their work depends on "little mutations in microbes every day" - but Darwin's tree? - Pierre-P Grasse died in 1985. - Another straw man? Which "routine methodology used by thousands of researchers" am I attempting to invalidate? Fair point. My apologies. In other words, you can't give me an example of a practical use for Darwin's tree in applied biology. What I meant by "I suspect ..." was "To the best of my knowledge ..." But the OP didn't have "a genuine question about the practical utility of phylogenetic inference" - it questions the practical utility of Darwin's tree. Darwin's tree is a map of the entire history of life - beginning with microbes that existed millions of years. Does phylogenetic inference depend on knowing this entire history of life? If so, how and why? Which "scientific consensus" am I attacking, exactly? Which "reasonable reputable source" demonstrates a practical use in applied science for Darwin's tree? Hey what about this one? It claims to use "the tree of life" (taken from the same article). "Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999)."

I did read that article, as a matter of fact. But I haven't yet got around to reading some other links offered to me. Anyways, I will take your advice on board and read them all. Because a theory and a conclusion from the theory are two different things. Is the theory dependant on the conclusion? No. Please show me a definition from any scientific website that includes Darwin's tree in their definiton the theory of evolution. Besides that, the practical usefulness of the theory of evolution is not the subject of the the OP.

I'm not claiming that the theory of evolution lacks practical applications - as I stated in an earlier post. Indeed, I believe the theory of evolution has innumerable practical applications. My point is that some posters here seem to think Darwin's tree is part of the theory of evolution - but it isn't - it is a conclusion reached from ToE. The theory and the conclusion are two separate things - the conclusion needs the theory, but the theory doesn't need the conclusion. Incidentally, in this context, "Creationists" usually refers to Young Earth Creationists. I am not of that ilk - I believe life began as microbes millions of years ago and through many stages and different life-forms arrived at the creatures of the present age.

Okay, I finally got around to reading this article, which is quite extensive. Since you are the one making the claim that this article contains at least one practical use of Darwin's tree in applied science, the onus is one you to point out such an example and then explain how and why. When you do find one, please let me know, as I will be happy to look in to it. As you examine each item on the list, ask yourself, "Is this dependant on the information that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (a microbe) that existed millions of years ago (ie, Darwin's tree)". A word of warning: Don't be fooled by potentially misleading terms like "proved its usefulness" and "the tree of life" and "evolutionary theory" and "common descent". Here is the fatal flaw in your argument: You have equated the phylogeny of a genus of bacteria to Darwin's tree, so your use of the term, "Darwin's tree" here is wholly inappropriate and misleading. A more appropriate term in this case would be "family tree". The "tree" here is observable microevolution and is confined to a genus, so it is nothing like Darwin's tree, which includes the entire history of life that evolved from a microbe over millions of years. "Making a Darwin's tree of a genus of bacteria" is therefore an oxymoron. Think of it this way: A biologist who is a Young Earth Creationist (ie, someone who rejects Darwin's tree) could trace and reconstruct the phylogenic "tree" of these bacteria just as proficiently as any "Darwinist" biologist. How dare you!!

So, why didn't you post about that, as an opposing theory to Darwin instead of just knocking his tree? "knocking his tree"? I don't know what you mean by that. I am looking for a practical use for it - without success, so far. I am getting lots of claims, but no specific explanations that demonstrate anything. A dissenting scientist like P-P Grasse is not exactly a hero in evolutionist circles. Best to sweep him under the carpet so he is not seen and not heard.

In other words, as I suspected, you can't tell me how Darwin's tree has proven practically useful in applied biology. Besides that, it's not up to me to substantiate your claim by chasing links - the onus is on you to back up your claim with an explanation. I find it really bizarre that something so useless is worshipped with such quasi-religious intensity, and that anyone who appears to disrespect this useless thing is demonised. It's a truly strange phenomenon.

This is irrelevant to the OP

You made the claim, so now the onus is on you to back it up - instead of throwing vague examples at me, take just of these examples and explain in specific terms how it demonstrates that Darwin's tree has proven practically useful in applied science. I'd bet my bottom dollar that you can't.

The cult does not tolerate dissenters. As an aside, you might be interested in reading the views of the late Pierre-Paul Grasse, one of France's most distinguished scientists (zoologist) ever, who believed in evolution, but claimed that Darwin's theory for how it happened was completely inadequate as an explanation. Nothing to do with the thread, however.

I haven't read this list yet, but I notice it relates to practical uses for "the theory of evolution". I agree that there are many, many practical uses for the theory of evolution in applied science. Be aware that Darwin's tree is not part of "the theory of evolution"; rather it is a conclusion of ToE. The theory of evolution goes something like this: Some mutations are favoured by natural selection, which are then inherited by the next generation, allowing the possibility of that mutation becoming dominant". This being so, I wholeheartedly accept the theory of evolution, because it is can demonstrated to be a fact - indeed, I have never heard of anyone who disputes it. Also be aware that the OP is not asking for practical uses for the theory of evolution, but practical uses for Darwin's tree, which is an entirely different matter.

Thank you. You seem to be the one making the claim that Darwin's tree has proven practically useful in applied science, so now the onus is on you to choose just one example from the talkorgins list and explain to me how it demonstrates that Darwin's tree has proven practically useful in applied science.

I don't think it's necessary for me to make any such distinction (even if I could!) on this thread as it seems irrelevant to the topic. Darwin's tree seems to be just as irrelevant and useless to applied biology now as it was then. "frequently exaggerated" is a gross understatement - it's like some kind of weird, irrational cult worship. I suspect most biologist have been indoctrinated from Biology 101 to believe that Darwin's tree is "the unifying concept of all biology", and for some odd reason, they've never stopped to consider the veractiy of this dogma, which appears to me to be a full-blown myth.