Francis
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Francis
-
-
On 30/04/2018 at 1:31 PM, PaulP said:
So if science is 'demonstrable', can you prove and test before me transpeciation/macroevolution?
One can observe a tadpole evolving into a frog in a matter of a few weeks and you doubt macroevolution?!
-1 -
On 13/09/2018 at 4:09 AM, Itoero said:
This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait
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.
-1 -
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.
0 -
On 29/11/2013 at 7:56 AM, Voluntary Blurry Vision said:
Are you able to blur your vision whenever you like and for as long as you want, to switch from sharp to blur in a second at your own command?
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.
0 -
4 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:
green?
Well, if you believe it is (as per your assertion), and you have good reasons for believing so (I'd call 999/1000 a pretty good reason), and the chosen ball is indeed green, then I'd say you have knowledge, even before the grand denouement. Your belief is both justified and true.Therefore, you know the chosen ball is green
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.
0 -
1 hour ago, beecee said:
'The word god for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless childish."
Albert Einstein, in a 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind".
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?
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
Experimental evolution is the use of laboratory experiments or controlled field manipulations to explore evolutionary dynamics.
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?
-1 -
1 hour ago, beecee said:
As I have stated before, along with the other far more knowledgable members of this forum, the theory of evolution is as certain as any theory can be and beyond any reasonable doubt.
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
On 4/11/2018 at 9:32 PM, Strange said:
People studying biology also study the theory of evolution. They therefore study the origin of species by descent. This will almost certainly involve seeing a diagram of the origins of these species.
Unless you think education is not "practical."
It is also the basis of taxonomy. But maybe that is not "practical" either.
Irrelevant to the OP
-1 -
On 5/11/2018 at 12:52 AM, Sensei said:
There are Darwin's trees (aka "phylogenetic tree") for viruses and microbes
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?
On 5/11/2018 at 1:16 AM, Strange said:What is "applied science"? Do you mean technology? Or experimental science? In both cases, they depend on the theories.
"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.
On 5/11/2018 at 1:16 AM, Strange said:Why do you call it "Darwin's tree" when he obviously didn't know about microbes that existed millions of years ago?
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.
0 -
On 2/11/2018 at 3:51 PM, Arete said:
theory is as good as it gets in science
Really? What about applied science? In applied science, they actually DO useful stuff, not just talk about theories.
On 2/11/2018 at 3:51 PM, Arete said:Believing in micro but not macro evolution is like believing in hours, but not weeks.
... 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 secondOn 2/11/2018 at 3:51 PM, Arete said:I gave you five.
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
0 -
19 hours ago, Strange said:
Can you explain why it is important (or even interesting) whether the descent of species from a common origin has practical uses or not?
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.
17 hours ago, DrP said:OK, maybe I don't know enough about it - I was under the impression it was part of the extended theory around the subject and the theory of evolution. It seems like it to me but I could be wrong. It is clearly closely related... and seems to be useful to some people.
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
On 2/11/2018 at 3:51 PM, StringJunky said:Darwin described descent with modification, which the tree illustrates, and those subjects/discipines exploit that principle.
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.
On 2/11/2018 at 5:02 PM, Sensei said:It's impossible. I have never heard of virologist or microbiologist disagreeing with microevolution and macroevolution, when they simply see it in their labs on daily basis. That's why they have so much of work (finding new medicament for viruses and microbes), just because of little mutations in microbes every day..
They see macroevolution in their labs every day?
Yes, their work depends on "little mutations in microbes every day" - but Darwin's tree?
On 2/11/2018 at 5:13 PM, CharonY said:If you have to go back to the beginning of the 20th century to cite someone clinging to a disproven hypothesis to invalidate a routine methodology used by thousands of researcher, you are doing something wrong (and the something wrong is simply being uninformed on the subject matter).
- Pierre-P Grasse died in 1985.
- Another straw man? Which "routine methodology used by thousands of researchers" am I attempting to invalidate?
On 2/11/2018 at 9:56 PM, swansont said:Your observation that conjecture about your motivations (biblical creationist) are off-topic is correct. Those posts have been removed.
But by the same token, characterizing any of science as a cult also has no place in the conversation. Get back on topic.
Fair point. My apologies.
On 2/11/2018 at 10:21 PM, mistermack said:
Keep your secrets then. But don't expect to be taken seriously. It turns your effort to debate into a joke.
In other words, you can't give me an example of a practical use for Darwin's tree in applied biology.
On 2/11/2018 at 10:47 PM, swansont said:It is also unfair to show up and make claims while being unfamiliar with the topic. The OP was answered, and the response brushed aside with "I suspect that all the examples you have mentioned here..." which is pretty weak tea.
What I meant by "I suspect ..." was "To the best of my knowledge ..."
On 3/11/2018 at 3:29 AM, Arete said:If the OP had a genuine question about the practical utility of phylogenetic inference, I would have thought a handful of review papers explicitly explaining how it is used in various applied fields would be a useful answer
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?
On 3/11/2018 at 3:31 AM, StringJunky said:If one attacks the scientific consensus, the onus is on the attacker to support their position, not the other way round. This is the standard expectation in science and discourse here..
Which "scientific consensus" am I attacking, exactly?
22 hours ago, beecee said:And as you start your inference with the above of not being an expert, chose to take the view of a reputable reasonable source.
Which "reasonable reputable source" demonstrates a practical use in applied science for Darwin's tree?
On 2/11/2018 at 3:19 PM, StringJunky said:Have a chew on this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
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)."0 -
22 hours ago, Strange said:!
Moderator Note
This sounds as if you have not read the linked articles. Soapboxing is a violation of rule 2.8. If you are not prepared to engage properly, this thread will be closed.
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.
28 minutes ago, DrP said:How is the conclusion not part of the theory?
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.
0 -
2 hours ago, beecee said:
Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.
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.
0 -
On 2/11/2018 at 3:19 PM, StringJunky said:
Have a chew on this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
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".
23 hours ago, Arete said:No, I just didn't feel it necessary to duplicate literature which already exists because you're too lazy to click a link, but I'll play:
Here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00182388
Is an investigation of the genus Neisseria - which includes the pathogens N. meningitidis and N. gonorrhoeae as well as a number of non-pathogenic commensal species. Both pathogens have been observed in the clinic to be penicillin resistant. By reconstructing the phylogeny ("Darwin tree" if you insist) we can determine that the resistance genes are mosaic genes resultant of ectopic recombination rather than vertical transfer, and horizontal exchange with commensal species is a probable route for inheritance of resistance in pathogenic species.
TlDr: by Making a Darwin tree of a genus of bacteria, we can show that they share and recombine genes that encode antibiotic resistance, and come up with better management plans for controlling the spread of drug resistance in those pathogens.
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.
On 2/11/2018 at 4:01 PM, Reg Prescott said:Darwinian-type explanations are as vacuous as Aristotelian "the rock falls to achieve its natural place" type, or "morphine puts you to sleep because it has a dormitive virtue".
How dare you!!
0 -
18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:23 minutes ago, Francis said:
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.
25 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:Never heard of him.
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.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Arete said:
Rather than being vague, I linked to a peer reviewed publication in each instance. Click the links.
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.
15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:I agree. The consequences of dissent are ferocious indeed.
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.
0 -
28 minutes ago, Arete said:
two - evolution is an incremental process - the accumulation of mutations, over generations through time. The distinction between macro and micro evolution is simply a categorization of convenience of the same phenomenon over different scales. Much like time into minutes, days, weeks, years, etc. Believing in micro but not macro evolution is like believing in hours, but not weeks
This is irrelevant to the OP
-1 -
21 minutes ago, Arete said:
Despite multiple, cited examples you're going to go ignore them and hand wavingly dismiss them without actually doing any investigation whatsoever. Right. I guess we're done here.
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.
-1 -
18 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:
The Darwinian naysayer just has to be discredited somehow or other
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.
0 -
29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
Have a chew on this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
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.
0 -
17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
Have a chew on this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
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.
0 -
1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:
Furthermore, you've been told above by two different members that the micro-macro evolution distinction is "artificial" and a mere Creationist fallacy. I think this can be challenged. Might take us off-topic but I'll provide sources if necessary.
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.
1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:But wasn't Edward Jenner getting along just fine with his vaccine research before Darwin was even born?
Darwin's tree seems to be just as irrelevant and useless to applied biology now as it was then.
1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:I'm inclined to agree with you here, at least in so far as I often suspect myself that the "essentialness" of Darwinian theory to applied biology is frequently exaggerated.
"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.
-1
Religion as evolutionary trait
in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Posted
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'.