|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Please provide an example of how the theory of universal common descent has proven useful in medicine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
YEC would use science to develop vaccines like any other scientist would.ringo writes:
Which useful medical science do YECs reject?
But they don't. Why not? Because they reject the science that they need to produce anything useful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Please provide an example of how the theory of universal common descent has proven useful in medicine.Tanypteryx writes:
Even the village idiot would expect non-human mammals to more closely model human conditions than mollusks or fish. Easy, all the mammals that are used to model human medical conditions, rather than fish or mollusks, because they are quite obviously more closely related to humans. You don't need the theory of UCD to figure out that mammals are "more closely related to humans" physiologically than mollusks or fish.
No one tried using insulin or thyroids from other mammals to treat human diseases before they knew we are related.
How do you know what they tried? They probably experimented with lots of different mammals before simply choosing those that worked best ... trial and error ... nothing to do with the theory of UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Sounds like I can safely assume that you yourself can't provide an example of how the theory of universal common descent has proven useful in medicine.
I thought you were an expert on evolution ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Your arguments are so weak that the village idiot shot them all down in flames.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
No one's ever called me "dilutional" before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
How does denying the theory of universal common descent prevent "useful medical research"?
Common descent. Your denial doesn't work. Creationists' rejection of common descent has prevented them from doing any useful medical research.Your denial doesn't work.
I don't recall denying universal common descent. My position is, I neither deny UCD nor accept it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
What does any of that have to do with whether or not the theory of UCD has proven useful in the field of medicine? meanwhile we have museums and libraries full of supporting evidence and you have a fictional book written by a bunch of bronze age Jewish goat herders. Is strawmaning really the best you can do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You don't need the theory of UCD to figure out that mammals are "more closely related to humans" physiologically than mollusks or fish.ringo writes:
No contradiction. According to taxonomy and physiology, humans are obviously more closely "related" to other mammals than they are to You contradict yourself. We're related but we're not related?non-mammals like mollusks and fish ... regardless of being "related" according to the theory of UCD. "Trial and error" would require a lot of errors. "Here, George, try some octopus insulin. If it kills you, we'll try salmon on the next guy."
A scientist with any common sense would first experiment with insulin from mammals. ... no need for the theory UCD. Why would anyone experiment with octopus or fish insulin if they were considered toxic to humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You don't need the theory of UCD to figure out that mammals are "more closely related to humans" physiologically than mollusks or fish.Tanypteryx writes:
In what way has the so-called knowledge of UCD been found to be "useful" in medicine?
YOU may not need it, but WE have that knowledge and find it quite useful. It is interesting that even the village idiot recognizes the obvious evolutionary relatedness of humans with other vertebrates, mammals, placentals, and apes, and the more distant relatedness with all the invertebrates.
A human's "evolutionary relatedness" to invertebrates is based on a theory ... as opposed to human "relatedness" to other mammals according to morphology and physiology, which is based on facts. Correction: A human's "evolutionary relatedness" to invertebrates is a theoryEdited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Which "job" in the field of medicine has been made "a lot easier" by the theory of UCD?
No one NEEDS a hammer to drive in a nail.But it certainly does make it a lot easier to USE the proper tool for the job.
UCD is the nail-gun of evolution - the best tool for the job that's ever been invented
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a population. So please explain how "UCD is the nail-gun of evolution". Spend your time ruining your pliers and screwdrivers trying to hammer nails all you want.
Sure ... if by "projects" you mean useless bed-time stories from Darwinist folklore about what might have happened millions of years ago.We'll use the nail-gun and complete 100 projects to your 1. But if by "projects" you mean medical applications, it appears UCD has accomplished zilch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Thank you for the correction. What I should have said is, "evolutionary relatedness" is a theory.
That is incorrect. It is based in the same biology that tells us our evolutionary relationships to the vertebrates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Please b advised that no one has yet provided an example of how UCD hss proven useful in medicine. You have already been give numerous examples, that you ignore. All that has been provided thus far is lame Darwinist propaganda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Depletion deletion
Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
A typically simplistic and inadequate Darwinist explanation. Sure, DNA determines and thus can alter morpholgy, but that does nothing to explain how natural selection and what environmental pressures acted to remove the entire pelvis from the spine of the whale's alleged evolutionary ancestor (something like Pakicetus) and relocate it elsewhere in the body. Not mysterious magic ... DNA ... but, yeah that's about right, give or take a detail or two Nor does DNA explain how natural selection and what environmental pressures acted to disconnect the tail from original pelvis and attach it to the spine (as in a modern whale or dophin). Even to the most science-hardened Darwinist, such evolutionary transitions must seem magical. (I completely understand why no evolutionary scientist would want to avoid discussing such matters ... too baffling and perhaps too close to divine intervention.) As far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever of a pelvis between the spine and tail of any modern whale or dolphin. Your "I don't know ... DNA done it" explanation is more scientific than the "I don't know ... God done it" explanation, but not by much.
a meat-cracker gourmand it may be impossible but for the intelligent of our species who study these things it's easy to understand. Easy as a piece of tail. And when it comes to believing between you and them I'll go with them.
I take your point and I thank you for the correction. To a layman simply looking at photos and diagrams, there seems to be no distinction between the spine and tail of most whales and dolphins.In the case of a sperm whale, however, there is a very obvious distinction between its spine and tail ... and not only that, the alleged vestigial (remote) pelvis is located close to the spine/tail junction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024