Darwin's Tree of Common Descent is Useless to Applied Science


Sorry, I seem to have missed the post in which you gave me a specific example of how Darwin’s tree has provided a physical, practical, use in applied science.

Would you be so kind as to re-post it, please? Thank you.


Sorry, Haywood; I’ve giving you the ‘cold shoulder’ until you explain how the common ancestry of human and mouse immune systems is essential to bone-marrow transplants. Alternatively, you could direct me to site that explains it. Thank you.
Oh, another alternative is to admit that your claim has not foundation in fact.


Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification and the correction.

There exist natural laws which can explain many observations, but I believe there are some observations that cannot be explained scientifically because they are not the result of natural laws alone - the history of life being one such example … other examples are the Virigin Birth, Jesus turning water into wine and the Resurrectlon.

I get that you work in the field of applied science and that common descent “works” in the sense that it appears to explain certain observations, but explanations is not what the OP is about. When you get past the theory-explanation-conclusion (aka talking) stage, and actually come up with a practical, applied, physical use for common descent, wake me up.

(George Brooks) #145


Thank you for your perfect timing!


@Edgar, I question the need to continue with this thread. Several scientists have tried to convince you but you haven’t been convinced. As a physician I don’t need to consciously think about common ancestry but respect the view of scientists upon which the medical practice is based.

I just look forward to the next discussion since this one isn’t really going anywhere. :wink:

(Chris Falter) #147

When a statement such as this appears, my argument needs no more evidence. I’ll move on.

Have a blessed day, Edgar.


Darwin’s Tree of Life was used to study Alzheimer’s disease. Did you miss it?

(Haywood Clark) #149

I don’t think you’re sorry at all, because you’ve long ago refused to engage in any substantive way, in this case by misrepresenting my straightforward explanation twice.

This may be news to you, but there are sites that any truly interested person could find with ease.

You’re not interested, just like you don’t own Gould’s book. Or maybe you’re just afraid to look?

(Christy Hemphill) #150

(Christy Hemphill) #151

When it gets to the point where people are just getting frustrated because the conversation isn’t going anywhere, it’s time to move on. If anyone would like to pick up part of this discussion and engage in a productive way, click on the time stamp of any post and click on “new” to start a linked thread.