Yep, still uselss as a tit on a bull.
Nashton
Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
aganunitsi
It does have useful applications, but you are refusing to admit that
they are useful to anyone else because they are useless to you. You
claim that ToE has a "legion of worshipers". So there are people that
worship something, but you think they get no use out of the object of
their worship? So why do you think they are worshiping it?
D9000
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
tits on a bull?
Nashton
> On Jul 14, 12:45 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>>
>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>>
>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>>
>> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
>> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
>> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
>> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>>
>> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>> no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
>> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
>
> It does have useful applications, but you are refusing to admit that
> they are useful to anyone else because they are useless to you.
Useful to whom, then? Just saying it won't make it true.
You
> claim that ToE has a "legion of worshipers". So there are people that
> worship something, but you think they get no use out of the object of
> their worship? So why do you think they are worshiping it?
Because it's in tandem with their world view.
Because they are uninformed about science and its methods.
Because they want to fit in with the crowd (emotionally immature).
>
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
"ID theory" is a scientific endeavour?
[...]
Nashton
Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
Will in New Haven
If it is a trure picture of what happened (and is happening and will
happen) then it simply doesn't matter if it has practical
applications, so no one has to prove to you that it does. It also
doesn't matter if it causes depression or genocide. Although it does
have useful applications and does not cause depression or genocide,
those issues don't matter very much.
"What is, is. What should be is a dirty lie." Lenny Bruce
--
Will in New Haven
John Vreeland
I'd still like to know why you think there are useless tits on a bull.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
D9000
Are there any male mammals (other than humans under the influence of
hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
them.
Now, tell me more about this ID theory. I wasn't aware that there was
one.
Sapient Fridge
This is now the third time I've posted this in reply after you stated
that the ToE is useless, but you never answer. Why is that?
============
Here's some quick examples of the application of the ToE:
We know not to overuse antibiotics because doing so evolves bacterial
strains which are resistant to them. The ToE explains why this happens.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sick/antibiotic_overuse.html
Computer models based on evolution (genetic algorithms) are very useful
for finding good solutions to complex problems with many parameters.
Knowing that we are related to other animals means that we can test
drugs on them with reasonable confidence as to how meaningful the
results are to humans.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html
http://www.drugresearcher.com/Research-management/Future-testing-on-apes-unavoidable-claims-report
Selecting a particular trait while harvesting animals or plants affect
the gene pool in the long run. The ToE explains why populations change
and gives clues as to what we need to do to stop promoting undesirable
changes. For example, harvesting large fish leads to populations of
smaller adult fish.
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=2111
Decent with modification is the basis of all plant an animal breeding.
It's using evolution even if it wasn't understood to be that at the
time. Understanding how it works makes the breeding of desirable
features more efficient.
Evolution can also be used directly to search for new enzymes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v5/n8/full/nchembio.203.html
There is an entire journal specifically on the uses of evolution:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/eva_enhanced/
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119423603/issue
In return let's see if you can think of some uses for religion, other
than as a way to control people. I can't think of any.
Nashton's predicted reply -> "LOL"
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
chris thompson
So by your own definition, teats on a bull- being without function-
must be vestigial.
Thank you.
Chris
Grandbank
Evolution doesn't postulate that the optimal will happen, only the
adequate. An omnipotent designer, OTOH, should have thought of this.
So answer the earlier question: Why nipples from a designer, and if
they are there, why not make them function?
(Your premise that lactating bulls would have an advantage is wrong,
BTW. For an animal that impregnates multiple females, having a horde
of young trying to feed would be a damn nuisance.)
KP
Prof Weird
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
A scientific theory isn't a 'worldview', no matter how loudly deranged
gibbertwits scream otherwise.
(unless, of course, your addle-pated enough to 'think' that theistic
outlook is of any relevance to the validity of a scientific
theory ....)
You keep whining that 'evolution is not useful !!!'; what, PRECISELY,
do you mean by 'useful' ? Useful FOR WHAT ?
After all, a credit card is useless as a hammer, or a parachute, or
quite a few other things.
And how many practical applications does gibbering Magical Skymanism
(ie, 'an unknowable being somehow did stuff sometime in the past for
some reason !!!!) have ?
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
Most argue quite successfully that ID is useless, and barely qualifies
as a half-assed hypothesis, much less a theory.
ID is not only useless, it is a science-stopper. Why bother looking
for answers when you can just sit on your bloated rump and fart 'God/
Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!1!!!' ?
If you 'think' it is permissible to give ID a pass for having no
applied/immediate practical use, WHY are you flatulating so feverently
against the ToE ?
> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
Most here DO know how science works - it is why they are opposed to
the glorifications of ignorance called 'creationism' and 'intelligent
design'.
You seem to be under the delusion that 'useful' only means 'someone
can make money off of it'.
The ToE is quite useful for explaining the observed relatedness of
living things, predicting what fossils we should find, and uniting
many fields in biology. Making money off it is not a requirement;
never was.
Creotardism, IDiocy and gibbering theolunacy are useless for
explaining anything, but quite useful for fleecing drooling simpletons
of their money.
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
Given that the ToE was DERIVED FROM OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY, and
science considers a theory's ability to change to conform to new data
A STRENGTH, the answer to your question is :
It is because you are a deranged loon with the silly idea that 'useful
= I can make money off of it !!!'
IIRC, Maxwell worked out his equations just to figure out how they
work, not to make money off of them. Finding a practical use for an
explanatory model is a bonus, not an absolute requirement.
How many practical applications are there for planetary accretion
theory (ie, how does someone make money off of knowing how planets
form ?)
Nashton
> On Jul 14, 3:45 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>>
>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> A scientific theory isn't a 'worldview', no matter how loudly deranged
> gibbertwits scream otherwise.
I never said it was. learn to read. Thanks
<snip>
cassandra
When I first read the topic, I thought sure you had confused TO with a
confessional. But I see now you are only repeating your useless
rant. Nevermind.
Nashton
Do you make it a habit to respond to useless rants?
bpuharic
>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
>
>Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
in your opinion. the world's scientists, not captured by religious
fanaticsm, would disagree
>
>Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
>useless
well it's not only useless, it's a charade
>
>But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
>tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
>legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
>theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
IOW he's a religous fanatic and thinks of science in religious terms
in 2000 years that led precisely nowwhere.
science invented the computer he complains about science on. religion?
usless
>
>This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
>reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
google 'evolutionary medicine'
res ipsa loquitu
you're a fanatic. that alone says volumes
Nashton
Where did I describe ID as a scientific theory?
And since when does everything have to be explained via science? Because
you say so? Why not just discard everything in philosophy while you're
at it?
LOL
bpuharic
actually you did say it. you said it because YOUR worldview, composed
of a taliban like view of the christian religion, sees the world ONLY
in religious terms.
>
><snip>
Robert Camp
No.
Why? Short answer: because it's kind of an oxymoron.
Why? Longer (but still severely oversimplified) answer: because there
are tradeoffs in parental care. And from the fact that there exists a
useful adaptation on the part of one parent it does not follow that
both parents would, could, or even should have it.
There were tradeoffs favored by adaptive processes at the point in
evolution where sexual (vs. asexual) reproduction began to divide and
define roles (for non r-strategists - or in other words for sexually
reproducing species that live longer, have fewer offspring, and invest
in parental care). These produced complementary (note spelling), and
sometimes oppositional, parental responsibilities.
One role evolved to (to varying degrees) nurture, feed (lactation came
in handy), and rear. The other evolved to (to varying degrees) help to
protect, help to feed (hunting), and help itself to other
opportunities to reproduce. That last is often at odds with other
obligations, and is almost always at odds with the needs of the co-
parent. It's a tradeoff, a balance of possibilities for passing on
genes.
These roles, of course, are not always played by the actors we assume,
and not always on a one-to-one basis (consider there are polyandrous
and polygynous, as well as monogamous, species). But there are
definitional parameters we can count on - consider also the male
seahorse, which is essentially the exception that proves the rule -
the rule being that pregnancies in nature are carried by the parental
role we have designated "female," and are physiologically linked to
lactation (e.g. oxytocin), as opposed to the role of the sometimes
protecting, mostly philandering, non-lactating "male."
RLC
bpuharic
>
> You
>> claim that ToE has a "legion of worshipers". So there are people that
>> worship something, but you think they get no use out of the object of
>> their worship? So why do you think they are worshiping it?
>
>Because it's in tandem with their world view.
meaningless
>Because they are uninformed about science and its methods.
says the religious fanatic who has no scientific training at all
>Because they want to fit in with the crowd (emotionally immature).
says the guy whose religion makes him fit in with the crowd
wonderful sense of irony...
>
>
>
>>
RAM
More activist ignorance from the antievolutionist troll!!!
cassandra
Only when I have nothing better to do. Sorting bellybutton lint works
only so long. So, what's your excuse?
RAM
These are all very subjective explanations.
Provide some evidence for them.
Eric Root
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss?
You tell us why the fuss. Science was just minding its own business
when a bunch of fanatic book-worshipping pseudo-Christians started an
unprovoke, unexcusable, and evil-hearted attack on it.
> Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
Yes, the pro-science view that reality makes sense, and the anti-
science one that reality is just an arbitrary kludge set up to please
the worse half of humanity (that's the side you're on).
>
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
> tweaked and now,
Just like all science, and thus it's dishonest to pretend that is a
flaw.
> with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers,
Not worshippers, gallant defenders who see the injustice of the attack
on evolution.
> most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if
...it weren't being unjustly attacked by neanderthals. So this whole
fuss is your fault, for which, if you believe that people have to
answer for wrongdoing in the afterlife, then you are the one with
something to worry about. I know, I know, you don't care anything
about the dictates of Christianity, you said as much here. So, what
kind of Christian are you?
Eric Root
Stuart
Why didn't the intelligent designer, after all he/she/it put them
there?
With evolution, we can explain how male mammals came to have vestigial
mammary
glands. Not so with any *intelligent designer*..
What is the rational reason the intelligent designer put teats on a
bull?
Or any other mammal. You'd think the intelligent designer would figure
it wasn't working out after the first few mammals he designed.
Stuart
RAM
Boneheaded?
RAM
> On 7/14/10 5:51 PM, D9000 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 July, 21:16, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >> D9000 wrote:
> >>> On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>>>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >>>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> >>>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >>>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >>>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> >>> Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> >>> tits on a bull?
>
> >> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> >> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
>
> > Are there any male mammals (other than humans under the influence of
> > hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
> > such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
> > already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
> > irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
> > them.
>
> > Now, tell me more about this ID theory. I wasn't aware that there was
> > one.
>
> Where did I describe ID as a scientific theory?
So you are comparing apples and nonapples? How insightful!
> And since when does everything have to be explained via science?
So nonapples explains apples?
> Because
> you say so?
No because you implied the scientific comparison in a subsequent
sentence in that paragraph that begins with: "Many scientific
endeavors . . . ." Admittedly it is a poorly written paragraph to can
be easily misinterpreted.
> Why not just discard everything in philosophy while you're
> at it?
Like the functional consequences of a philosophy of an evolutionary
approach to human moral development. Of course no thinking person
would.
>
> LOL
Prof Weird
Evasion of points noted.
BTW - how does gibbering creotardism explain the observations that
birds can form teeth, or that humans have defunct yolk proteins
despite the fact that human eggs don't have yolks ?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/chicken_archosaursame_differen.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php
Oh, right : 'God/Intelligent Designer willed it thus !! Now sit down,
shut up and worship before something bad happens to you ... '
bpuharic
if people didn't reply to useless rants your threads would be 1 post
long
Ernest Major
<dd5cfe76-f672-4abd...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
D9000 <alyc...@btinternet.com> writes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayak_fruit_bat#Paternal_lactation
>
>Now, tell me more about this ID theory. I wasn't aware that there was
>one.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
aganunitsi
> aganunitsi wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 12:45 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> >> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> >> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> >> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>
> >> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> >> no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
> >> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
>
> > they are useful to anyone else because they are useless to you.
>
> Useful to whom, then? Just saying it won't make it true.
>
> You
>
> > claim that ToE has a "legion of worshipers". So there are people that
> > worship something, but you think they get no use out of the object of
> > their worship? So why do you think they are worshiping it?
>
> Because it's in tandem with their world view.
> Because they are uninformed about science and its methods.
> Because they want to fit in with the crowd (emotionally immature).
>
>
So at a minimum just as useful as any religion. Thank you for
confirming.
Darwin123
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
Because when somebody mentions a useful application for this
theory, you do not acknowledge the useful application.
Nashton
You're quite funny. Breath of fresh air in here :)
Mark Isaak
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here. Why the fuss? Is it
> not clear that it's a clash of world views?
Only to people who can't even count to zero.
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
Creationism has been around for millennia without leading to any
practical uses. Your qualifier "immediate" does not apply. Creationism
is an unmitigated failure.
> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been
> revised, tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has
> its own legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a
> scientific theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science
> works.
>
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> no useful applications?
It does.
1. It ties together practically all of biology.
2. It is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and
agriculture.
3. It explains parasite virulence patterns, which helps guide public
health policies.
4. It is used to produce greater yields in fisheries.
5. It was used to save the kakapo bird from extinction.
6. Phylogenetic analysis (which is inseparable from the theory of common
descent) is used to predict gene function, which is used all the time for
drug discovery.
7. Phylogentic analysis is used all the time in epidemiology, for example
to find sources of outbreaks and produce more effective vaccines.
8. Evolution inspired genetic algorithms, which have myriad applications
in engineering, finance, scheduling, architecture, military strategy, and
more.
9. Tools designed for evolutionary science, in particular ANOVA and
linear regression, are mainstays of many other fields now.
Among other things.
In the meantime, as noted above, creationism has given us nothing. Or
less.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Desertphile
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
Oops! You cite a church's web site. LOL! You silly goose!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless.
Okay, I give up. What is this "ID theory," and why didn't the
Credationists in the Dover Area, PA, step forward and present it
to the world / Judge Jones?
Desertphile
> D9000 wrote:
> > On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
> >>
> >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
> >>
> >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
> >
> > Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> > tits on a bull?
> Riddle me this. Why didn't evolution favor the male mammals that can
> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
For the same reason cows don't have testicles.
Desertphile
> On 7/14/10 5:51 PM, D9000 wrote:
> > On 14 July, 21:16, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >> D9000 wrote:
> >>> On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
> >>
> >>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >>>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
> >>
> >>>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >>>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >>>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
> >>
> >>> Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> >>> tits on a bull?
> >>
> >> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> >> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
> >
> > Are there any male mammals (other than humans under the influence of
> > hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
> > such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
> > already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
> > irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
> > them.
> >
> > Now, tell me more about this ID theory. I wasn't aware that there was
> > one.
> Where did I describe ID as a scientific theory?
If it's a theory, then it is scientific. Make up your mind. You
asserted there was something called "ID theory:" that means it is
science. So..... where is it?
Nashton
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0300, Nashton wrote:
>
>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>>
>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here. Why the fuss? Is it
>> not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> Only to people who can't even count to zero.
>
>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> Creationism has been around for millennia without leading to any
> practical uses. Your qualifier "immediate" does not apply. Creationism
> is an unmitigated failure.
>
>> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been
>> revised, tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has
>> its own legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a
>> scientific theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science
>> works.
>>
>> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>> no useful applications?
>
> It does.
>
> 1. It ties together practically all of biology.
Can you be more...vague?
Thanks.
>
> 2. It is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and
> agriculture.
No. Not the ToE. Sorry.
>
> 3. It explains parasite virulence patterns, which helps guide public
> health policies.
>
No, it doesn't.
Cite?
> 4. It is used to produce greater yields in fisheries.
Macroevolution? Cite?
>
> 5. It was used to save the kakapo bird from extinction.
Cite?
>
> 6. Phylogenetic analysis (which is inseparable from the theory of common
> descent) is used to predict gene function, which is used all the time for
> drug discovery.
No. You have no clue as to how pharmacological agents are discovered.
>
> 7. Phylogentic analysis is used all the time in epidemiology, for example
> to find sources of outbreaks and produce more effective vaccines.
No, that is standard Mendelian genetics.
>
> 8. Evolution inspired genetic algorithms, which have myriad applications
> in engineering, finance, scheduling, architecture, military strategy, and
> more.
BS. What algorithms would those be?
>
> 9. Tools designed for evolutionary science, in particular ANOVA and
> linear regression, are mainstays of many other fields now.
Statistical tools designed for statistical study of variation.
Big whoop.
>
> Among other things.
>
> In the meantime, as noted above, creationism has given us nothing. Or
> less.
You have copied and pasted fro the t.o. archives. All of it is nonsense
and is not related to the ToE, as in macroevolution.
Bzzzzt.
>
Nashton
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0300, Nashton<na...@no.ca> wrote:
>
>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
>> useless.
>
> Okay, I give up. What is this "ID theory," and why didn't the
> Credationists in the Dover Area, PA, step forward and present it
> to the world / Judge Jones?
>
This is about the usefulness of the ToE.
Get with the program.
Thanks!
Boikat
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
Yup, the anti-knowledge moron cites a creatotard site, and thinks it's
meaningful in some way. He's mistaken, however. One useful thing
that the ToE has done is shown that YECism is useless.
Boikat
Scott Balneaves
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
The theory of gravity has "Zero practical applications". Things continue to
fall like they always did. But the theory of gravity explains WHY things fall.
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
To quote from CA215:
"Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much
of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have
no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in
itself."
So what's wrong with understanding how the world works?
Eric Root
Once again, Nash the coward utterly fails to produce any uses for
creationism.
Eric Root
Rusty Sites
Rusty Sites
> aganunitsi wrote:
>>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>>>
>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
>>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>>>
>>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
>>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>>>
>>> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
>>> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
>>> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>>>
>>> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>>> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
>>
>> they are useful to anyone else because they are useless to you.
>
> Useful to whom, then? Just saying it won't make it true.
>
> You
>> claim that ToE has a "legion of worshipers". So there are people that
>> worship something, but you think they get no use out of the object of
>> their worship? So why do you think they are worshiping it?
>
> Because it's in tandem with their world view.
If that world view is reality, then yes. Do you think it might be
possible that people reject evolution and other things because it's not
"in tandem" with their world view? Isn't that the reason you don't like
it? Your world view is not based on reality and simply can't
accommodate it.
> Because they are uninformed about science and its methods.
I suppose you are so informed but evolutionary biologists and the vast
majority of scientists are not. Perhaps you are just a pompous ass.
> Because they want to fit in with the crowd (emotionally immature).
In the U.S. a majority rejects evolution so who just wants to fit in
with the crowd there?
Jeffrey Turner
So _that_ explains why the saying isn't "useless as tits on a bat."
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message
news:i1l44g$h18$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
If you want reality - the very last place you should be looking is anything
associated with "creationism".
>
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
It's not a clash of world views - it's a clash of reality based science -
against "nothing" based ignorance.
>
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also useless.
> Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate applied/practical
> uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
There is no such thing as an ID theroy, because there is, and never was, any
valid evidence.
" .... I see a pattern ....so there MUST be a gopd that made it" is not
valid.
>
> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
Only in your deranged, delusional, rotting brain.
>
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has no
> useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting reality or
> is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
Cannot explain the "why" when it is a loaded, distorted question, with the
writer assuming the distortions are automatically taken as fact.
"Why do you murder, and eat, babies?"
Dakota
The only answer is that God likes nipples. It's an obsession with him.
He should seek help.
D9000
> On 7/14/10 5:51 PM, D9000 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 July, 21:16, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >> D9000 wrote:
> >>> On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>>>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >>>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> >>>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >>>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >>>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> >>> Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> >>> tits on a bull?
>
> >> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> >> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
>
> > hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
> > such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
> > already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
> > irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
> > them.
>
> > one.
>
> Where did I describe ID as a scientific theory?
You said:
"Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is
reasonable."
This at least implies that there is an ID theory, and that ID is a
scientific endeavour. Is that not what you meant?
> And since when does everything have to be explained via science? Because
> you say so? Why not just discard everything in philosophy while you're
> at it?
>
> LOL
Philosophy is useless.
Ilas
news:982121c6-9a6d-4774...@c36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I always find it interesting when religious people, whose religion is
central to their lives and beliefs, attemp to insult science by saying it's
akin to religion.
Vend
Given that God created man in his own image, God must have nipples
himself. What are they for?
bpuharic
>On 7/14/10 9:55 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0300, Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>>>
>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here. Why the fuss? Is it
..
>>>
>>> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>>> no useful applications?
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> 1. It ties together practically all of biology.
>
>Can you be more...vague?
>Thanks.
>
>>
>> 2. It is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and
>> agriculture.
>
>No. Not the ToE. Sorry.
sticking his fingers in his ears and gong 'nyah nyah nyah'...
creationists seem to think the fact they say something...without
evidence...means it MUST be true...cuz they know the bible (so they
think)
Stuart
And a penis. Does God pee?
Stuart
Stuart
I thought he was obsessed with beetles.
Stuart
chris thompson
> D9000 wrote:
> > On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> > Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> > tits on a bull?
>
> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
The males of at least one species of mammal are known to lactate and
nurse their young.
Do your homework.
Chris
Nashton
That's nice.
And I should car because.....
D9000
wrote:
Can you point me at a reference, please? I was looking for just such a
thing, but my Google-fu is obviously deficient.
Vend
I don't know, but they say he managed to father himself, somehow (a
poor teenage woman of an ethnic minority and some holy *spirit* were
apparently involved).
Karel
wrote:
...
> Decent with modification is the basis of all plant an animal breeding.
...
And here I was hoping that it would be indecent with modification.
Regards,
Karel
Rusty Sites
You have no truck with it?
Devils Advocaat
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
How about you take a look at this link?
Desertphile
<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0300, Nashton wrote:
>
> > http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
> >
> > Zero practical applications, nothing to see here. Why the fuss? Is it
> > not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> Only to people who can't even count to zero.
>
> > Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> > useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> > applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
> Creationism has been around for millennia without leading to any
> practical uses. Your qualifier "immediate" does not apply. Creationism
> is an unmitigated failure.
Huh?! Creationism is a *HUGE* success! Hundreds of billions of
dollars have been funnled into evil men's bank accounts using
Creationism. Without Creationism, insane batshit crazy Republican
Party goons would never have gained political power. Without
Creationism, evil men would have to find another excuse for
inflicting their evil upon the world. How can people be swayed
into flying passenger jets into skyscrapers without Creationism?
How can greedy psychopaths sway hundreds of thousands of boys and
men into invading harmless countries and butchering little boys
raping the girls without Creationism?
(LARGE CUT)
Desertphile
> On 7/14/10 10:31 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0300, Nashton<na...@no.ca> wrote:
> >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >> useless.
> > Okay, I give up. What is this "ID theory," and why didn't the
> > Creationists in the Dover Area, PA, step forward and present it
> > to the world / Judge Jones?
> This is about the usefulness of the ToE.
Then why did you mention Creationism?
Desertphile
Knowledge is evil because it is contrary to Nafoff's
interpretation of his paper god.
Nashton
Ah, the parade of the unwashed cheerleaders. Totally predictable,
totally true to their world view.
Desertphile
Don't bats have tits?
There is a bat handing inside the screen door at the bunkhouse at
the moment. I would go examine it for tits, but every time I pass
it opens its mouth, shows very tiny sharp teeth, and hisses at me.
It insists I move out, instead of it leaving. I'll have a video of
Bat put up on YouTube in a few minutes.
Boikat
Yes. Your willful ignorance is predictable. As far as calling those
that accept the ToE "Cheerleaders", so what? I'd rather be a
"cheerleader" for a valid scientific theory, than be a willfully
ignorant anti-knowledge troll, like you.
Boikat
Desertphile
<SpamY...@spamex.com> wrote:
> So do you really think your posts have any value other than entertainment?
NaffOff is as useless as tits on a bull. I mean equal to tits on a
bull. Both would be amusing, which is a use.
Geode
who is this mammal? I never heard of it.
Geode
.
Geode
they say that, because for them, science is as incomprehensible as
religion.
Geode
.
chris thompson
email sent.
CT
chris thompson
email sent.
CT
chris thompson
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:45 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> > Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> > Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> > Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> > useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> > applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> > tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> > legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> > theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>
> > This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> > no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
> > reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
>
> must be vestigial.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Chris
Oops. Nashton does not seem to be able to reconcile this.
Shocking!
Chris
cassandra
> Desertphile wrote:
> > There is a bat handing inside the screen door at the bunkhouse at the
> > moment. I would go examine it for tits, but every time I pass it opens
> > its mouth, shows very tiny sharp teeth, and hisses at me. It insists I
> > move out, instead of it leaving.
>
>
> > I'll have a video of Bat put up on YouTube in a few minutes.
>
It must have run out of steam.
mur...@tntech.edu
>
> >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >> useless.
>
> > to the world / Judge Jones?
>
> This is about the usefulness of the ToE.
>
>
> Thanks!
What is this "ID theory," and why didn't the Credationists in the
Dover Area, PA, step forward and present it to the world / Judge
Jones?
---DPM
bpuharic
>
>Ah, the parade of the unwashed cheerleaders. Totally predictable,
>totally true to their world view.
ah, the irony...a creationist...a believer in the mass herd idea that
the bible is lterallyl true critcizing the herd mentality of science
sure would be ncie if a creationist could tell us when creationism
worked
in the last 2000 years
Inez
> >>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> >> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> > tits on a bull?
>
> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
Which lactating males were those? Natural selection can only favor
things that exist. Did the last common ancestor of mammals have
lactating males?
Inez
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough.
If it's "fair enough" then why is the argument unsuccessful?
> Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been revised,
> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
What application would you expect it to have? How is it failing to be
useful in that application? Do you consider history to be useful, or
is it all just a bunch of knowledge with no application in your view?
Nashton
>
> they say that, because for them, science is as incomprehensible as
> religion.
> Geode
> .
>
LOL
Nashton
There are many resources on the Internet as to how to use Google;)
Nashton
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:29:18 -0700, Rusty Sites
> <SpamY...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>> So do you really think your posts have any value other than entertainment?
>
> NaffOff is as useless as tits on a bull. I mean equal to tits on a
> bull. Both would be amusing, which is a use.
>
>
You're one of the biggest creeps to post in here.
I'm sure you're a hermit, as I don't believe anyone can stand living in
the same space as you for more than a few hours.
rsnorman
Lactating males are not rare. Even Darwin knew about this, writing in
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex:
"It is well known that in the males of all mammals, including man,
rudimentary mammae exist. These in several instances have become well
developed, and have yielded a copious supply of milk. Their essential
identity in the two sexes is likewise shewn by their occasional
sympathetic enlargement in both during an attack of the measles."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation
Nashton
>
> Which lactating males were those? Natural selection can only favor
> things that exist. Did the last common ancestor of mammals have
> lactating males?
>
Is that question we will ever have answer for? Seriously..
chris thompson
> >>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> > A scientific theory isn't a 'worldview', no matter how loudly deranged
> > gibbertwits scream otherwise.
>
> I never said it was. learn to read. Thanks
Will in New Haven
It's "on." You just don't understand show business.
--
Will in New Haven
Scott Balneaves
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:59:16 +0000 (UTC), Scott Balneaves
> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
>> > http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>> >
>> >
>> > Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
>>
>> The theory of gravity has "Zero practical applications". Things continue to
>> fall like they always did. But the theory of gravity explains WHY things fall.
>>
>> > This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>> > no useful applications? Is it because it's too far from reflecting
>> > reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
>>
>> To quote from CA215:
>>
>> "Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much
>> of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have
>> no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in
>> itself."
>>
>> So what's wrong with understanding how the world works?
>
> Knowledge is evil because it is contrary to Nafoff's
> interpretation of his paper god.
I have *never* understood the /desire/ to be ignorant. I remember being very
young and watching my dad change the battery on our '64 Chev Impala, and
looking at the big engine, and wondering what the heck was in there, and how it
made the rear wheels go around.
Richard Clayton
Actually, Desertphile is very high on the list of t.o posters I'd love
to meet.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
chris thompson
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:46:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>
>
>
> <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/2010 6:40 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> > > In message
> > > D9000 <alycid...@btinternet.com> writes
> > >> On 14 July, 21:16, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> > >>> D9000 wrote:
> > >>> > On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> > >>> >>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> > >>> >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> > >>> >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> > >>> >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> > >>> >> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> > >>> >> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is
> > >>> reasonable.
>
> > >>> > Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> > >>> > tits on a bull?
>
> > >>> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> > >>> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
>
> > >> Are there any male mammals (other than humans under the influence of
> > >> hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
> > >> such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
> > >> already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
> > >> irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
> > >> them.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayak_fruit_bat#Paternal_lactation
> > So _that_ explains why the saying isn't "useless as tits on a bat."
>
> Don't bats have tits?
Bats have teats, like all other mammals. Some are always
nonfunctional, as in the Microchiroptera, and some (very few) have
functional teats in both males and females.
>
> There is a bat handing inside the screen door at the bunkhouse at
> the moment. I would go examine it for tits, but every time I pass
> it opens its mouth, shows very tiny sharp teeth, and hisses at me.
> It insists I move out, instead of it leaving. I'll have a video of
> Bat put up on YouTube in a few minutes.
Some years ago when we were banding migrants on Great Gull Island, we
caught a Large Brown Bat (_Eptesicus in a mist net. Most of us, having
seen its teeth, were too scared to untangle it. Meanwhile, it was a
sight to see. It used its thumbs to pull strands of the net to its
mouth and with one or two bite, just bit through the net (it used its
molars and premolars- cheek teeth, in case Tony Pagano is reading).
A more experienced bander finally came out to untangle the bat- not so
much to rescue the bat but more to save a rather expensive mist net )
Chris
Mark Isaak
> On 7/14/10 9:55 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0300, Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>>>
>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here. Why the fuss? Is it
>>> not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>>
>> Only to people who can't even count to zero.
>>
>>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
>>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
>>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>>
>> Creationism has been around for millennia without leading to any
>> practical uses. Your qualifier "immediate" does not apply. Creationism
>> is an unmitigated failure.
>>
>>> But the ToE has been around since Wallace and Darwin. It's been
>>> revised, tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has
>>> its own legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a
>>> scientific theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science
>>> works.
>>>
>>> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
>>> no useful applications?
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> 1. It ties together practically all of biology.
>
> Can you be more...vague?
Evolution's usefulness in biological sciences generalizes very widely.
Deal with it.
>> 2. It is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine
>> and agriculture.
>
> No. Not the ToE. Sorry.
Yup, the theory of evolution.
>> 3. It explains parasite virulence patterns, which helps guide public
>> health policies.
>>
> No, it doesn't.
It has in the past; no reason to think it has stopped now.
> Cite?
You're the one making the claim. Do you own homework.
>> 4. It is used to produce greater yields in fisheries.
>
> Macroevolution?
Evolution. As in "theory of evolution".
> Cite?
>
>> 5. It was used to save the kakapo bird from extinction.
>
> Cite?
Again, do your own work. You claimed uselessness. Your job was to find
all the counterexamples and explain, with your own citations to
peer-reviewed literature, why they do not qualify. You obviously did not
do that. It suffices, to demolish your argument completely, simply to
point that out and stop there. And since your argument is so vacuous to
begin with, I don't need to do much more.
>> 6. Phylogenetic analysis (which is inseparable from the theory of
>> common descent) is used to predict gene function, which is used all
>> the time for drug discovery.
>
> No. You have no clue as to how pharmacological agents are discovered.
I have a lot more than you. And my uncle, who *did* work at discovering
pharmacological agents, agrees with me, not you.
>> 7. Phylogentic analysis is used all the time in epidemiology, for
>> example to find sources of outbreaks and produce more effective
>> vaccines.
>
> No, that is standard Mendelian genetics.
No it isn't. Cite?
>> 8. Evolution inspired genetic algorithms, which have myriad
>> applications in engineering, finance, scheduling, architecture,
>> military strategy, and more.
>
> BS. What algorithms would those be?
Genetic algorithms.
>> 9. Tools designed for evolutionary science, in particular ANOVA and
>> linear regression, are mainstays of many other fields now.
>
> Statistical tools designed for statistical study of variation. Big
> whoop.
Extremely big.
>> Among other things.
>>
>> In the meantime, as noted above, creationism has given us nothing. Or
>> less.
>
> You have copied and pasted fro the t.o. archives.
I researched and wrote that part of the t.o. archive. And none of the
above was pasted.
> All of it is nonsense
> and is not related to the ToE, as in macroevolution.
None of it is nonsense, and all of it (arguably excepting #9) is
*directly* derived from the theory of evolution.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Vend
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:46:54 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>
>
>
> <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/2010 6:40 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> > > In message
> > > D9000 <alycid...@btinternet.com> writes
Probably she understood your intentions, pervert!
> It insists I move out, instead of it leaving. I'll have a video of
> Bat put up on YouTube in a few minutes.
>
Vend
> On 14 July, 21:16, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > D9000 wrote:
> > > On 14 July, 20:45, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> > >>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> > >> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> > >> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> > >> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> > >> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> > >> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> > > Which ID theory is that, then? Does it help explain why you might find
> > > tits on a bull?
>
> > Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> > lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
>
> Are there any male mammals (other than humans under the influence of
> hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
> such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
> already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
> irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
> them.
Actually the question is not irrelevant. Evolution favoured lactating
females, but their ancestor was some non-lactating reptile.
Frank J
> http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> tweaked and now, with the advent of the Internet, it also has its own
> legion of worshipers, most of whom would not be championing a scientific
> theory if they knew the slightest thing about how science works.
>
> This is a reasonable question. Can someone explain why this theory has
> reality or is it because it's incomplete and constantly changing?
Your silence about all the mutually-contraditory anti-evolution
"theories" tells us that you find them every bit as useless.
Frank J
> On 7/14/10 5:51 PM, D9000 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 July, 21:16, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >> D9000 wrote:
> >>>>http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_useless_theory
>
> >>>> Zero practical applications, nothing to see here.
> >>>> Why the fuss? Is it not clear that it's a clash of world views?
>
> >>>> Of course, many will argue unsuccessfully that ID theory is also
> >>>> useless. Fair enough. Many scientific endeavors had no immediate
> >>>> applied/practical uses, at least this mitigating factor is reasonable.
>
> >>> tits on a bull?
>
> >> Riddle me this. Why didn't "evolution" favor the male mammals that can
> >> lactate? It seems like a definite advantage, no?
>
> > Are there any male mammals (other than humans under the influence of
> > hormone treatment) that can lactate? (I can't find any reference to
> > such). If mammary glands were an adaptation of a structure that
> > already only existed in females, then the question would seem to be
> > irrelevant; if there are no lactating males, evolution can't favour
> > them.
>
> > one.
>
> Where did I describe ID as a scientific theory?
IDers claim that it is. If you disagree, show us where you challenged
them.
> And since when does everything have to be explained via science? Because
> you say so? Why not just discard everything in philosophy while you're
> at it?
>
> LOL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Vend
Probably not, but an earlier ancestor didn't have lactating females
either.
I think it's an interesting question why lactation developed in
females but not in males. I suppose it's probably related to the
typical parenting models used by mammals: in most species the male
either leaves the female after mating or it is the dominant male of
the pack with a lot of children.
Desertphile
Sub-category: "I never said most of the tings I said." -- Yogi
Berra
--
bpuharic
>Desertphile wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:29:18 -0700, Rusty Sites
>> <SpamY...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So do you really think your posts have any value other than entertainment?
>>
>> NaffOff is as useless as tits on a bull. I mean equal to tits on a
>> bull. Both would be amusing, which is a use.
>>
>>
>
>You're one of the biggest creeps to post in here.
aw DAMN...i was hoping for THAT honor...
>I'm sure you're a hermit, as I don't believe anyone can stand living in
>the same space as you for more than a few hours.
i was in catholic seminary. does that count?
bpuharic
<richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7/15/2010 4:00 PM, Nashton wrote:
>> Desertphile wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:29:18 -0700, Rusty Sites
>>> <SpamY...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So do you really think your posts have any value other than
>>>> entertainment?
>>>
>>> NaffOff is as useless as tits on a bull. I mean equal to tits on a
>>> bull. Both would be amusing, which is a use.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're one of the biggest creeps to post in here.
>> I'm sure you're a hermit, as I don't believe anyone can stand living in
>> the same space as you for more than a few hours.
>
>Actually, Desertphile is very high on the list of t.o posters I'd love
>to meet.
actually...me too...
Inez
I doubt it. I was just pointing out that you can't expect evolution
to come up with any advantage you can think of, only ones that were/
are available to be selected for. Although Rnorman says males lactate
all the time.