|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) 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 (Idle past 104 days) 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 (Idle past 104 days) 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.")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) 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 (Idle past 104 days) 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Try 10-6
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Why not?
Without UCD no one understands how viruses evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Medical science doesn't care if all life descended from a common ancestor or what the ancestors of viruses were doing millions of years ago, bcoz it has no practical use for such stories. Living things do, in fact, evolve.And they all evolve from their ancestors. Looking at all things, we all (eventually) have common ancestors. UCD Medical science is only interested in what viruses have been doing in recent history ... bcoz that's all that relevant and useful.
If things were different... then UCD may not be applicable. Let's say, for example, we found that things did, in fact, evolve - but they did not evolve from their ancestors; or if we looked at groups of things and they didn't eventually have common ancestors... then the mechanisms of evolution would be different from what they are today.
Mechanisms of evolution are known ... and knowing how they work and how to make practical use of them in medicine and biology doesn't require knowing anything about what happened or didn't happen millions of years ago. Therefore UCD is irrelevant to understanding the mechanisms of evolution. So stop talking crap.
And the lessons we learn would be different. And all of biology would be different. And all of medicine would be different. UCD is a fundamental aspect to how the mechanisms of evolution function due to the facts we see.The vast increases in technology and knowledge in biology and medicine are due to the knowledge of the fundamental UCD ideas and applying them to further concepts/trials/experiments.
You could cut through all your stupid Darwinist bullshit by simply providing an example of how UCD has provided a practical use in biology or medicine ... but you can't, bcoz no such use for the theory of UCD exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Cite one example of a vaccine or medicine that required the acceptance of that theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. New vaccines and medicines are developed based on an understanding of UCD to understand the mechanisms of evolution. Explain why an understanding of UCD is necessary to understand the mechanisms of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Do certain non-human species serve as models for how medicines will behave in humans because someone believes that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor? The common ancestry of mammals and vertebrates certainly matters to medicine since everything from zebrafish to rodents to primates are used as models for how medicines will behave in humans. If no one believed that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor, would those non-human species cease to be useful as models for how medicines will behave in humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
All you're doing is making assertions with no evidence to back them up. Any fool can do that. You've got nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Certain non-human species share genetic similarities with humans, which is why those species are used as models for how medicines will behave in humans. As I said earlier, these models are used because the animals used are thought to share common ancestry with humans. Tell me, how many scientists had to believe in Universal Common Descent in order for those genetic similarities to exist? 10? 20? 100? 1000? How many? Was there a critical mass?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
None of your post has anything to do with what I'm talking about ... which is whether or not the theory of UCD has provided a practical use in medicine or biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=Stile]And the point is that UCD is still irrevocably important to those genetic similarities existing.]/qs]
If no one believed in UCD, would those genetic similarities still exist?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024