Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Comedy gold!
Comparative Anatomy - New Bedford Whaling Museum

From the Introduction:"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.")

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:
"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.")

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?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?

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:"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".

Try 10^-6

Why not?

[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?

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.Medical science is only interested in what viruses have been doing in recent history ... bcoz that's all that relevant and useful. 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. 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.​​

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.Explain why an understanding of UCD is necessary to understand the mechanisms of evolution.

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?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?

All you're doing is making assertions with no evidence to back them up. Any fool can do that. You've got nothing.

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.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?

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.

[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?