The light of evolution: What would be lost

[The Cadet]

So some people seem to wonder what applicability evolution has. It's often said that evolution, particularly macroevolution and the tree of life, are not actually useful. Additionally, finding uses for a theory is one of the most secure ways of confirming that theory - if you can make predictions based on a theory and use those predictions to make technology that works, it's a pretty good sign that you're on the right track. So with that in mind, here's an old group of videos from a youtuber by the handle of C0nc0rdance. C0nc0rdance is a professional biochemist who has worked, among other things, on exploring the HIV virus, and how to treat it. He explains in great detail how evolutionary concepts, from the microevolution of populations of viruses to the genetic heritage shared between humans and chickens in the tree of life, are used to make our lives better. It's worth a look for anyone who wishes to deny evolution. There is no better pragmatic test of a scientific theory than its utility to humanity, and evolution passes with flying colors.

 

[AV1611VET]

So some people seem to wonder what applicability evolution has.

Okay, so microevolution is used to look for a solution to HIV.

Great!

I assume they're doing what they've been put on earth to do.

But when they expect us to believe we came from somewhere outside of Genesis 1, they're marching to another drummer.

One who has strings attached.

[VERSE=Matthew 4:9,KJV]And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.[/VERSE]

Macroevolution is like a person fishing.

He baits the hook with HIV research.

Then, when the common people grab it, he reels them into a world of mutants and deep time.

 

[The Cadet]

Okay, so microevolution is used to look for a solution to HIV.

Great!

Um... No. Macroevolution, that is, evolution at and above the species level, is also useful for research about HIV. Additionally, the second half of the second video and the third video both go into detail about how macroevolution is used to make useful technological strides. In particularly, oncogenes were found through research into chickens - research that would be completely inapplicable to humans if we did not share a common ancestor.

AV1611VET clearly did not watch the videos in the OP, or just quickly skimmed the first one while ignoring the rest.

 

[juvenissun]

So some people seem to wonder what applicability evolution has. It's often said that evolution, particularly macroevolution and the tree of life, are not actually useful. Additionally, finding uses for a theory is one of the most secure ways of confirming that theory - if you can make predictions based on a theory and use those predictions to make technology that works, it's a pretty good sign that you're on the right track. So with that in mind, here's an old group of videos from a youtuber by the handle of C0nc0rdance. C0nc0rdance is a professional biochemist who has worked, among other things, on exploring the HIV virus, and how to treat it. He explains in great detail how evolutionary concepts, from the microevolution of populations of viruses to the genetic heritage shared between humans and chickens in the tree of life, are used to make our lives better. It's worth a look for anyone who wishes to deny evolution. There is no better pragmatic test of a scientific theory than its utility to humanity, and evolution passes with flying colors.

Simple logic can do prediction much much better than evolution can.
The idea of evolution is, indeed, useless.

 

[AV1611VET]

In particularly, oncogenes were found through research into chickens - research that would be completely inapplicable to humans if we did not share a common ancestor.

Not a "common designer," but a "common ancestor" ... right?

If so, please show me how that research would not have worked if "common ancestor" would have been replaced with "common designer."

 

[The Cadet]

Simple logic can do prediction much much better than evolution can.
The idea of evolution is, indeed, useless.

With all due respect, if you know absolutely nothing about a given subject, shooting your mouth off like this in a completely content-free post is kind of not useful. Thanks.

 

[sfs]

With all due respect, if you know absolutely nothing about a given subject, shooting your mouth off like this in a completely content-free post is kind of not useful. Thanks.

Yup. If juvenissun can use simple logic to tell me which allele is ancestral at a locus, or the range over which mutation rates are autocorrelated, then he has a point. Otherwise, it's just wasted words.

 

[juvenissun]

Yup. If juvenissun can use simple logic to tell me which allele is ancestral at a locus, or the range over which mutation rates are autocorrelated, then he has a point. Otherwise, it's just wasted words.

If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic. There is NO scientific question which can not be answered with a simple logic. NO concept of evolution is needed.

You may start to explain to me any one of them.

 

[juvenissun]

With all due respect, if you know absolutely nothing about a given subject, shooting your mouth off like this in a completely content-free post is kind of not useful. Thanks.

If you do not want to know, then suit yourself. Not my business.

 

[The Cadet]

If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic. There is NO scientific question which can not be answered with a simple logic.

Maybe the problem here is that you're assuming there's more to science than the consistent application of evidence to craft logical models that provide a consistent framework for explaining and predicting past and future events. Evolution is one such model. And yes, if you have all the evidence and all of the most reasonable logical inferences, you don't "need" the model... because you already have it, or at least will be able to consistently reconstruct it. Even if you don't want to call it evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe the problem here is that you're assuming there's more to science than the consistent application of evidence to craft logical models that provide a consistent framework for explaining and predicting past and future events. Evolution is one such model. And yes, if you have all the evidence and all of the most reasonable logical inferences, you don't "need" the model... because you already have it, or at least will be able to consistently reconstruct it. Even if you don't want to call it evolution.

No. Evolution is more than logical. It has a lot of implications that can not be proved but are taken as proven facts. That is absolutely not needed in any practical applications. For example, the common ancestry is one of them.

 

[crjmurray]

No. Evolution is more than logical. It has a lot of implications that can not be proved but are taken as proven facts. That is absolutely not needed in any practical applications. For example, the common ancestry is one of them.

Common ancestry doesn't exist?

 

[The Cadet]

No. Evolution is more than logical. It has a lot of implications that can not be proved but are taken as proven facts. That is absolutely not needed in any practical applications. For example, the common ancestry is one of them.

Um... Did you watch the videos in the OP? Common ancestry is one of the things used as a method to discover things like oncogenes, which led to both a nobel prize in biology and an entirely new kind of chemotherapy medicine!

 

[whois]

C0nc0rdance is a professional biochemist . . .

so are koonin, noble, and maynard smith.
check out some of their work sometime.

 

[The Cadet]

so are koonin, noble, and maynard smith.
check out some of their work sometime.

Koonin does not reject evolution or common descent; he merely contends that certain mechanisms involved need to be more or less stressed. One might expect a theory like evolution to change somewhat in 50-odd years. Ditto Noble - he accepts descent with modification, natural selection, and common descent, but has some quibbles about the mechanisms. I'm fairly sure the same can be said of Maynard Smith. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[sfs]

If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic. There is NO scientific question which can not be answered with a simple logic. NO concept of evolution is needed.

You may start to explain to me any one of them.

There are millions of places in the genome where humans differ genetically from one another. These are the result of mutations that have happened at some point in the past and that have been passed down to offspring. For example, on chromosome 2, at position 136,608,896, some humans have a cytosine and others have a thymine. I want to know which was the original base and which is the base it mutated into. Which is which?

 

[whois]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

the point i'm trying to make is, how on earth can you have any kind of "prediction" when you have such things as epigenetics, transposons, and HGT.
and noble and koonin both call for darwinism to be trashed.
also, these people do not hide behind an alias on the internet like your friend does.

 

[The Cadet]

the point i'm trying to make is, how on earth can you have any kind of "prediction" when you have such things as epigenetics, transposons, and HGT.
and noble and koonin both call for darwinism to be trashed.

No, they didn't. Read the CSMonitor link I posted. Evolution denialists have been taking these minor disagreements about the mechanisms of common descent and have inflated them into "See, here's a leading scientist who thinks evolution is wrong!" But that's not what's going on! Koonin and Noble both accept common descent, descent with modification, and natural selection. In other words: the core of the theory of evolution and the tree of life. Their disagreements have to do with the modern synthesis, and the mechanisms by which organisms diversified. "Darwinism" is not a term generally used to describe any part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. You are completely misrepresenting their position and lying when you make claims like this.

 

[whois]

No, they didn't.

actually they do, read the link on my profile for what koonin has to say.
here is what noble says:
www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

 

[justlookinla]

Um... Did you watch the videos in the OP? Common ancestry is one of the things used as a method to discover things like oncogenes, which led to both a nobel prize in biology and an entirely new kind of chemotherapy medicine!

Darwinian evolutionism commonly uses the bait and switch method of promotion of their Godless creationism worldview. "Common ancestry" is the term used to 'prove' that humanity is just another of many life forms, one no better than the other (humans are of no more worth than chimps) and that the creative force for the creation of all life, including humanity (and chimps), is by only random/chance/mindless/meaningless/purposeless/goalless naturalistic mechanisms. At this point, the 'common ancestry' switcheroo takes place and it's further claimed that humanity had it's source in some unknown single life form of long long ago.

Bottom line, it's simply promotion of the philosophical worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism, a faith based belief system promoted as science.