Clade

[PsychoSarah]

Not at all. I know the cladistics IS useful. But the idea of common ancestry embedded in cladictics may be not.

Why do you care, if it is useful why fight it when you can't prove it wrong?

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you care, if it is useful why fight it when you can't prove it wrong?

I don't have the expertise to prove it wrong. But I do can ask questions about evolution that evolution experts can not answer.

That is what I am doing. So far, the question in the OP has not be answered. I am more confident to say that the idea of common ancestor is really USELESS.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't have the expertise to prove it wrong. But I do can ask questions about evolution that evolution experts can not answer.

That is what I am doing. So far, the question in the OP has not be answered. I am more confident to say that the idea of common ancestor is really USELESS.

We use it to locate at risk genes for cancers and other genetic diseases so that they can be detected early and treated before they inflict the worst damage they can do.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is what I am doing. So far, the question in the OP has not be answered. I am more confident to say that the idea of common ancestor is really USELESS.

It has been answered several times now. Here is the best answer thus far.

Phylogenies -- which is what cladistics is designed to determine -- are certainly of practical use for me. I use the genomes of closely related species to determine which alleles are ancestral and which are derived, for identifying cases of positive selection (among other uses); without knowing which species to compare, I would have no basis for extracting the information. We use phylogenies to determine which species to sequence so as to get the most bang for our sequencing bucks. We use them to determine which parts of the genome are functional, since they're the parts that are conserved across species. In particular, we need them to determine which parts are functional only within a particular lineage.

More broadly, without the framework of common descent and an implied phylogenetic tree, comparative genomics would have no coherence, and we'd have no structure for thinking about our data. I have no idea how we'd function without it.--sfs​

Evolution experts have alread shown you how it is useful. You ignore it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought it is one which does not.

Cladistics is not Linnaean taxonomy. Linnaean taxonomy was invented without incorporating common ancestry, or the potential for species to evolve. Cladistics does include common ancestry, evolution, and speciation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. I know the cladistics IS useful. But the idea of common ancestry embedded in cladictics may be not.

As you have been shown several times now, it is useful. sfs works in the very field you are asking about, and he clearly states that it is useful.

 

[juvenissun]

We use it to locate at risk genes for cancers and other genetic diseases so that they can be detected early and treated before they inflict the worst damage they can do.

Use what?

 

[juvenissun]

It has been answered several times now. Here is the best answer thus far.

Phylogenies -- which is what cladistics is designed to determine -- are certainly of practical use for me. I use the genomes of closely related species to determine which alleles are ancestral and which are derived, for identifying cases of positive selection (among other uses); without knowing which species to compare, I would have no basis for extracting the information. We use phylogenies to determine which species to sequence so as to get the most bang for our sequencing bucks. We use them to determine which parts of the genome are functional, since they're the parts that are conserved across species. In particular, we need them to determine which parts are functional only within a particular lineage.

More broadly, without the framework of common descent and an implied phylogenetic tree, comparative genomics would have no coherence, and we'd have no structure for thinking about our data. I have no idea how we'd function without it.--sfs​

Evolution experts have alread shown you how it is useful. You ignore it.

And he did not answer my follow-up question.

 

[juvenissun]

As you have been shown several times now, it is useful. sfs works in the very field you are asking about, and he clearly states that it is useful.

You are not his dog. He kept quiet, you do not bark.

 

[Loudmouth]

And he did not answer my follow-up question.

There is no need to. He stated clearly that common ancestry is very useful in his work. I have shown you multiple papers where common ancestry is used in their research.

Sticking your head in the sand is not a valid argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are not his dog. He kept quiet, you do not bark.

He didn't keep quiet.

"More broadly, without the framework of common descent and an implied phylogenetic tree, comparative genomics would have no coherence, and we'd have no structure for thinking about our data. I have no idea how we'd function without it."--sfs

 

[sfs]

I don't have the expertise to prove it wrong. But I do can ask questions about evolution that evolution experts can not answer.

No. You can ask questions about evolution and ignore the experts' answers.

That is what I am doing. So far, the question in the OP has not be answered. I am more confident to say that the idea of common ancestor is really USELESS.

Since I told you explicitly that the idea of common ancestry was very useful, and gave you examples, you must have some reason for disagreeing with my answer. What is it?

 

[sfs]

And he did not answer my follow-up question.

What follow-up question didn't I answer?

 

[lasthero]

No. You can ask questions about evolution and ignore the experts' answers.



Since I told you explicitly that the idea of common ancestry was very useful, and gave you examples, you must have some reason for disagreeing with my answer. What is it?

My guess? A doltish adherence to untenable dogma.

 

[juvenissun]

What follow-up question didn't I answer?

Sigh. OK, I will try again:

In your genome study, if you can see the (evolutional) changes of a few generations (?) within in a few years (or within the time of the project), and then go back and forth to study the relationship among the generations, then I WILL NOT call this method used the idea of common ancestry.

Yes, the changes observed in a sequential process IS useful. However, it does not need to be called an evolutional change. It is simply a sequential change. A creationist can do the same study comfortably and reaches to the same conclusion.

The work you described is simply NOT a study of so-called evolution. I would say a real evolution work must involve some kind of "fossil" records. In this sense, the cladistics is nothing but a classification scheme. The idea of common ancestry is NOT needed. (I said this sentence so many times, I almost feel sick of it).

Hope you do can tell me what did I say wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Use what?

Clades. They also tell us which animals are likely to share genes that cause human diseases (even if that gene doesn't cause an illness in that animal).

 

[juvenissun]

What follow-up question didn't I answer?

This one: #159
Simply dismissed me is not an answer at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Clades. They also tell us which animals are likely to share genes that cause human diseases (even if that gene doesn't cause an illness in that animal).

Other classifications can also do that. It is hard to say which one is better.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Other classifications can also do that. It is hard to say which one is better.

It is really efficient to use DNA evidence to trace a genetic trait. Especially ones that aren't obviously expressed.

 

[sfs]

Sigh. OK, I will try again:

In your genome study, if you can see the (evolutional) changes of a few generations (?) within in a few years (or within the time of the project), and then go back and forth to study the relationship among the generations, then I WILL NOT call this method used the idea of common ancestry.

Yes, the changes observed in a sequential process IS useful. However, it does not need to be called an evolutional change. It is simply a sequential change. A creationist can do the same study comfortably and reaches to the same conclusion.

The work you described is simply NOT a study of so-called evolution. I would say a real evolution work must involve some kind of "fossil" records. In this sense, the cladistics is nothing but a classification scheme. The idea of common ancestry is NOT needed. (I said this sentence so many times, I almost feel sick of it).

Hope you do can tell me what did I say wrong.

We rarely look at changes in a family across generations. Occasionally we'll look at changes within a population over a few generation, usually in organisms with short reproductive times like viruses or malaria.

What we do is look at genetic differences between individuals. For what I do, it's usually individuals within a single species; for others, it's individuals in different species. In either case, we use common descent for all sorts of things, as I already noted.

Now, could you please tell me why the practical uses I have for the idea of common descent don't exist?