|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
What? Where does that link say cetaceans have five fused sacral vertebrae? one whale museum source, Comparative Anatomy - New Bedford Whaling Museum , cites cetaceans as also having five fused sacral vertebrae. It only says humans have 5 fused sacral vertebrae. Under the "Cetaceans" heading there nothing about a sacrum or any fused vertebrae.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Where did you get the idea that whales has a sacrum of fused vertebrae? Cetaceans don't have a sacrum, nor any fused vertebrae.
Not only do whales still have their sacral vertebrae, but according to that source they are still fused. Why would they still have that vestigial remain (ie, the sacral vertebrae still being fused)?
This electrical engineer has got his wires crossed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
How is that that source once said cetaceans have five fused sacral vertebrae, but now it doesn't? Such is the case with the five (5) sacral vertebrae in humans -- and interestingly one whale museum source, Comparative Anatomy - New Bedford Whaling Museum , cites cetaceans as also having five fused sacral vertebrae. What's going on? Why did they recently change it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Found any whales with a fused sacrum yet? LOL!dwise1 writes:
Comedy gold! I already gave that info to you, you fucking idiot.Comparative Anatomy - New Bedford Whaling Museum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
But if by "relatedness of life", you mean the theory of UCD ... no, that theory is irrelevant and useless to medicine.Taq writes:
From the Introduction:
Wrong. The evolutionary nature of diseases requires that their omics be analyzed by evolution-compatible analytical tools such as parsimony phylogenetics in order to reveal common mutations and pathways’ modifications. Since the heterogeneity of the omics data renders some analytical tools such as phenetic clustering and Bayesian likelihood inefficient, a parsimony phylogenetic paradigm seems to connect between the omics and medicine. It offers a seamless, dynamic, predictive, and multidimensional analytical approach that reveals biological classes, and disease ontogenies; its analysis can be translated into practice for early detection, diagnosis, biomarker identification, prognosis, and assessment of treatment. Parsimony phylogenetics identifies classes of specimens, the clades, by their shared derived expressions, the synapomorphies, which are also the potential biomarkers for the classes that they delimit. Synapomorphies are determined through polarity assessment (ancestral vs. derived) of m/z or gene-expression values and parsimony analysis; this process also permits intra and interplatform comparability and produces higher concordance between platforms. Furthermore, major trends in the data are also interpreted from the graphical representation of the data as a tree diagram termed cladogram; it depicts directionality of change, identifies the transitional patterns from healthy to diseased, and can be developed into a predictive tool for early detection.Evolutionary medicine: A meaningful connection between omics, disease, and treatment - PMC "there are new calls for the need of evolution in medicine in order to provide explanations for drug resistance in HIV and bacterial strains, autoimmune and degenerative diseases, as well as cancer typing and treatment. Cancer development, progression, and maintenance are all evolutionary processes; they mirror similar evolutionary processes at the cellular and population levels in that they all involve genetic modifications, selective pressure, and clonal propagation". This suggests the paper is concerned with the utilization in medicine of "evolutionary processes" such as "genetic modifications, selective pressure, and clonal propagation". But understanding these "evolutionary processes" and how they are useful in medicine does not require anyone to accept the theory that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor (UCD). So which part of this paper demonstrates how the theory of UCD has proven practically useful in medicine, thus proving me "wrong"?(Note: Irrelevant comments don't count, such as the following: "Evolutionary medicine seeks to explain the nature of disease in light of evolutionary theory. It views the physicalities of the human body as a result of millions of years of natural selection that present compromises between differentiation at all levels and vulnerabilities.")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
But if by "relatedness of life", you mean the theory of UCD ... no, that theory is irrelevant and useless to medicine.Taq writes:
Which part of this paper demonstrates how the theory of UCD has proven practically useful in medicine, thus proving me "wrong"?
Wrong ... Plants have been a source of medicines in human cultures for millennia. The past decade has seen a decline in plant-derived medicines due to the time-consuming nature of screening for biological activity and a narrow focus on individual candidate plant taxa. A phylogenetically informed approach can be both more comprehensive in taxonomic scope and more systematic, because it allows identification of evolutionary lineages with higher incidence of medicinal activity. For these reasons, phylogenetics is being increasingly applied to the identification of novel botanic sources of medicinal compounds.Frontiers | Combining Evolutionary Inference and Metabolomics to Identify Plants With Medicinal Potential (Note: Irrelevant comments don't count, such as the following: "The expression of these metabolites is likely the result of coevolutionary processes between plants and the other species with which they interact and effective metabolites are thus selected upon through evolution" ... "This suggests that the origin of the Magnoliids 122–125 million years ago is a key evolutionary point at which plant volatile terpene synthesis increased significantly.")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
UCD is the simplest explanation. Any kindergarten student can understand it.
Why cant Dredge? What happened to him? Was he dropped on his head as an infant?"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I'm telling you it is those meat-crackers he eats. No one can consume 2000 year old jesus-meat without noticeable mental effects.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
But if by "relatedness of life", you mean the theory of UCD ... no, that theory is irrelevant and useless to medicine.Taq writes:
This article makes the assumption that certain human diseases have "roots in primate evolution". Okay, so what? How does that translate to a practical medical use for the theory of UCD?
Wrong ... When viewed from the perspective of time, human genetic disorders give new insights into their etiology and evolution. Here, we have correlated a specific set of Alu repetitive DNA elements, known to be the basis of certain genetic defects, with their phylogenetic roots in primate evolution. From a differential distribution of Alu repeats among primate species, we identify the phylogenetic roots of three human genetic diseases involving the LPL, ApoB, and HPRT genes. The different phylogenetic age of these genetic disorders could explain the different susceptibility of various primate species to genetic diseases. Our results show that LPL deficiency is the oldest and should affect humans, apes, and monkeys. ApoB deficiency should affect humans and great apes, while a disorder in the HPRT gene (leading to the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) is unique to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Similar results can be obtained for cancer. We submit that de novo transpositions of Alu elements, and saltatory appearances of Alu-mediated genetic disorders, represent singularities, places where behavior changes suddenly. Alus' propensity to spread, not only increased the regulatory and developmental complexity of the primate genome, it also increased its instability and susceptibility to genetic defects and cancer. The dynamic spread not only provided markers of primate phylogeny, it must have actively shaped the course of that phylogeny.Just a moment... The article also says,"The different phylogenetic age of these genetic disorders could explain the different susceptibility of various primate species to genetic diseases." "could explain"? That hardly sounds like a practical medical use for the theory of UCD. Which part of the article describes a practical medical use for the theory of UCD?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
But if by "relatedness of life", you mean the theory of UCD ... no, that theory is irrelevant and useless to medicine.Taq writes:
It seems to me that this paper basically compares the genomes of humans to those of rats and mice, in an effort to determine the suitability of the latter as experimental models to study human disease ... as the paper says:
Wrong ... In this study, we have used genes predicted from the completed mouse, rat and human genomes, and a manually validated set of human disease genes. Our aims were three-fold. Firstly, we sought to determine whether human disease genes are collectively distinguishable, with respect to evolutionary conservation and evolutionary rates, from non-disease genes. Then we investigated whether genes ascribed to different pathophysiological systems exhibit significant differences in evolutionary rates. The results promise to be relevant for the consideration of different types of animal models utilized to investigate the mechanisms of human disease.Evolutionary conservation and selection of human disease gene orthologs in the rat and mouse genomes - PMC "Although these findings are not specific to genes associated with human disease, they could influence the selection of animal models used to investigate human disease." But a study of such comparisons doesn't require the acceptance of the theory that humans, mice and rats evolved from a common ancestor. A scientist who rejects UCD could make exactly the same comparisons and arrive at exactly the same conclusions described in this paper.Therefore, a theory about why genetic commonalities between humans, rats and mice (eg, UCD) is unnecessary and irrelevant to the endeavours of this paper. Perhaps the paper's use of a Darwinist term like "evolutionary conservation" fooled you. That term refers to so-called conserved DNA sequences, which could just as well be called "common" DNA sequences, for that's essentially what they are - DNA sequences that are similar or common to different species (eg, humans, rats, mice). Scientists choose to call these common DNA sequences, "conserved" sequences" bcoz it reflects their belief that said sequences have been conserved by natural selection down through evolutionary history (according to UCD). But it makes no difference to anything whether they're called conserved sequences or common sequences, or whether anyone believes conserved sequences are the result of UCD ... it certainly doesn't mean that accepting the theory of UCD is required to understand genetic similarities between different species or that UCD has provided a practical use in medicine. So please explain how this paper proves I'm "Wrong".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: No one needs the theory of UCD to understand how viruses evolve and how they affect humans and other species. Without UCD no one understands how viruses evolve.
What crap. No scientific publication would describe the mechanisms of evolution as UCD, or vise-versa. Of course not.But, UCD is a major part of all mechanisms - which would all fall apart if it wasn't for UCD. No user manual describes a vehicle as being nuts and bolts.But the nuts and bolts are a part of the vehicle - which would all fall apart if it wasn't for the nuts and bolts. quote: Sure can.The vehicle can be defined without even mentioning the nuts and bolts. But the nuts and bolts are a major connecting system of the vehicle.And UCD is a major connecting system of the mechanisms of evolution. The mechanisms of evolution are independent from the theory of UCD... the former exist regardless of the latter. Sort of and not really at the same time. In a theoretical fantasy universe - you're right... but there would still be a "UCD-ish-like" theory on each variant path. However, in our real universe - we don't find anything that doesn't align with the UCD theory on earth.If UCD didn't exist the way it does - the mechanisms of evolution we have today would not exist the way they do either. You don't need the theory of UCD to understand and utilize the mechanisms of evolution. This is true, but silly. Just like you don't need nuts and bolts to understand and utilize a vehicle (you can have a 3D printed car now, even.) BUT - all vehicles are based on theories and ideas that come from assemblies using nuts and bolts. And if you understand what the nuts and bolts are doing - you'll have a MUCH better understanding of vehicles (even 3D printed ones without nuts and bolts) than those who don't understand the nuts and bolts. Equivalent to: All mechanisms of evolution are based on theories and ideas that come from UCD. And if you understand what UCD is doing - you'll have a MUCH better understanding of the mechanisms of evolution than those who don't understand UCD.
Medicine utilizes facts such the mechanisms of evolution, but medicine has no use for the theory of UCA. No. Medicine utilizes facts such as the mechanisms of evolution as understood being based on UCA and medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist without UCA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Try 10-6
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Why not?
Without UCD no one understands how viruses evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Stile writes:
Why not? Without UCD no one understands how viruses evolve. Because it's such a fundamental aspect. Just like no one understands how vehicles are built without nuts and bolts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=Stile]Because it's such a fundamental aspect.]/qs]
That doesn't tell me anything. Why is the theory of UCD "fundamental" to understanding how viruses evolve?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024