Jump to content
Francis

Are there any practical uses for Darwin's tree in applied biology

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Francis said:

Which "scientific consensus" am I attacking, exactly?


Which "reasonable reputable source" demonstrates a practical use in applied science for Darwin's tree?

? Hmmm, I thought I made that pretty clear.....

23 hours ago, beecee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution

Applications of evolution:

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[1][2]Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Are+there+any+practical+uses+for+Darwin's+tree+in+applied+biology&oq=Are+there+any+practical+uses+for+Darwin's+tree+in+applied+biology&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.1765j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionarytheory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And as you start your inference with the above of not being an expert, I I I I içhose to take the view of a reputable reasonable source.

And the following assertion is absurd.

20 hours ago, Francis said:

Because a theory and a conclusion from the theory are two different things.  Is the theory dependant on the conclusion?  No.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Francis said:

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.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mistermack said:

No. So what? Since Darwin's tree is an explanation of the past 3,000 plus million years of evolution, and applied biology is all about the present, then it's not surprising. I don't work in "applied biology" so that's not likely to happen anyway, and you are asking for a "practical" use.

Darwin's tree is self evident once anyone with half a brain is given the outline of how evolution works. It's all about THEORY and UNDERSTANDING of the past.

Quote

I can't think of a practical use for the big bang theory in applied physics. It's nowhere near as bleeding obvious as Darwin's tree, but it's still accepted Theory in physics.

 

And like I said, it's a pointless observation. These things explain the past in a coherent logical and evidence based manner. We no longer have to invent superstitious stories about big ghostly men in the sky making everything in seven days. 

Increasing understanding IS a practical use, in my book, and to me, all of biology is applied biology, because biology's main application has always been to understand the living world. And there's been nothing in the history of biology to remotely match Darwin's origin of species in explaining and understanding that. 

Of course, Darwin's tree can't explain talking snakes and women made from ribs. Or people living to 1,000 years old, or how eating one apple curses the human race for the next six thousand years. 

It DOES explain why we find simpler fossils in older layers of the Earth though. Explains it all perfectly well. To anyone who actually WANTS to know.

Yes, well said and great analogy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Francis said:

Yes, their work depends on  "little mutations in microbes every day" - but Darwin's tree?

There are Darwin's trees (aka "phylogenetic tree") for viruses and microbes.

Google for "ebola virus tree" in graphics mode. There are even real-time interactive one..

5bdef8424a01e_ebolatree2.thumb.png.b8007614be27d9b6cb6af0e8a1e5dba5.png

5bdef843b049f_ebolatree.png.00cea2e2e6c0714743a07447a94d9687.png5bdef8c776398_ebolatree3.thumb.png.7c7999d8a3f0c407270c2cced4584f76.png

Search net for "phylogenetic tree virus [name of virus]"..

 

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Francis said:

Really?  What about applied science?  In applied science, they actually DO useful stuff, not just talk about theories.

What is "applied science"? Do you mean technology? Or experimental science? In both cases, they depend on the theories. 

14 hours ago, Francis said:

 Darwin's tree is a map of the entire history of life - beginning with microbes that existed millions of years.  

Why do you call it "Darwin's tree" when he obviously didn't know about microbes that existed millions of years ago?

Edited by Strange
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Francis said:

 What I meant by "I suspect ..." was "To the best of my knowledge ..."

!

Moderator Note

The point here is that you are asking questions, so the best of your knowledge is missing some pieces. Ergo you can't dismiss these responses so casually. Assuming your questions are being asked in good faith.

 
13 hours ago, Francis said:

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?

!

Moderator Note

The tree is rather more than that. It also encompasses the concept of descent with modification. Otherwise there would be no tree. The question you had asked is not the same as asking "Does phylogenetic inference depend on knowing this entire history of life?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 10:32 PM, mistermack said:

Darwin's tree is an explanation of the past 3,000 plus million years of evolution,

I think OP is waffling between different meanings and you focus on one, the so-called "tree of life" which is a reconstruction of the evolutionary history of life on earth. What Arete and I am using  (and what Sensei was showing) are generalized phylogenetic tree. I.e. a general reconstruction of relationships. The latter has many applied uses, including function predictions of genes and proteins, epidemiological tracking (e.g. to track and predict spread of viral and bacterial strains) and so on. I.e. it goes far beyond just theoretical uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Francis said:

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? 

Since you are  simply and erroneously rejecting all answers you have been given, perhaps you may also like to reject this answer...Knowledge!

So you are not interested in the fact that all the life you see today, all evolved from some microbe? You are not interested in learning how that original microbe evolved from non living matter via Abiogenesis? So why are you here, on a science forum?

Quote

"applied science" is technology, yes.  Applied biology may be animal and plant breeding, or medical science.

 And you don't see that useful and beneficial?

Quote

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.

Again you reject knowledge as useful? You reject the practical application of a theory, say like GR and the gravitational waves it predicted, as possibly a new path to new knowledge?...or how the application of how Darwin's tree can be useful to biology?

So again, why are you here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Francis said:

Irrelevant to the OP

:D

 

Are you really serious?:rolleyes: It appears that you simply are not going to accept any reasoning or answer that may conflict with your agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beecee said:

:D

 

Are you really serious?:rolleyes: It appears that you simply are not going to accept any reasoning or answer that may conflict with your agenda.

Back on page 2  I said that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Francis said:

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 .

It is a subset of that tree. If the subset has practical uses then, obviously, the tree has practical uses.

Otherwise it is like saying a fruit tree has has no practical use because we can't use the whole tree, only the fruit.

5 hours ago, Francis said:

 

Irrelevant to the OP

Of course it isn't irrelevant. It is yet another example of a practical use. Which you have, again, just rejected out of hand.

!

Moderator Note

That is soapboxing, which is against the rules of the forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Francis said:

Irrelevant to the OP

Are you kidding?! You open a thread saying you find it curious there are no practical applications, and then you reject the next 4 pages of examples of practical applications. You're being extremely intellectually dishonest in this. Why did you post this thread here if you didn't really want any examples to spoil what you suspect? Have you perhaps latched onto this idea emotionally, and are therefore finding it difficult to see reason wrt the subject? You wouldn't be the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

The OP has been answered, and the objections to these answers are either hand-waves, or demands for some specific use of the tree (e.g. that one must use it to connect species that are separated by a large amount of time) which suggests that the inquiry does not represent a sincere attempt at gaining knowledge. The distinction being drawn between the tree and the theory of evolution is so obtuse as to strain credulity that this is a sincere objection.

I don't see a point in letting this continue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.