Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Yeah yeah, Stale ... so you keep saying. If UCD is so important to biological and medical science, why is it that you can't cite even ONE EXAMPLE of how the UCD has made a practical contribution to biological or medical science?All you've got to offer to back up the Darwinist claim you've been brainwashed with is a dumb and irrelevant analogy about "nuts and bolts".Stale ... give up.

Because mammals are closer relatives, once again showing the usefulness of UCD. Holy Crap! Do you not see the absurdity of this argument. The reason that mammals are more similar to humans is because of closer shared common ancestry and shared common ancestry is UCD. If you are challenging UCD you are challenging common ancestry.

All of those quotes are backed by the knowledge that the similarities were produced by common ancestry and evolution. That's why those similarities are useful. Speaking as someone who works in biomedical research, UCD is what makes those similarities useful. Conservation of sequence is something that has become quite important in comparing animal models. It is entirely relevant, whether you admit it or not.

Zebrafish are used as models in medical science. Birds aren't often used because they are expensive to house and have longer generation times.Why Use Zebrafish to Study Human Diseases? | NIH Intramural Research Program The only reason that some animals are objectively more like humans than others is UCD and evolution. There is no reason why such a pattern would exist if species were created separately. It is only the nested hierarchy produced by UCD and evolution that we get these relationships.

​
I'm betting you never searched papers to see if this is true?

quote:

---

We used a comparative genomics approach encompassing a broad phylogenetic range of animals with sequenced genomes to determine the evolutionary patterns exhibited by human genes associated with different classes of disease. Our results support previous claims that most human disease genes are of ancient origin but, more importantly, we also demonstrate that several specific disease classes have a significantly large proportion of genes that emerged relatively recently within the metazoans and/or vertebrates. An independent assessment of the synonymous to non-synonymous substitution rates of human disease genes found in mammals reveals that disease classes that arose more recently also display unexpected rates of purifying selection between their mammalian and human counterparts.

​

Conclusions
Our results reveal the heterogeneity underlying the evolutionary origins of (and selective pressures on) different classes of human disease genes. For example, some disease gene classes appear to be of uncommonly recent (i.e., vertebrate-specific) origin and, as a whole, have been evolving at a faster rate within mammals than the majority of disease classes having more ancient origins. The novel patterns that we have identified may provide new insight into cases where studies using traditional animal models were unable to produce results that translated to humans. Conversely, we note that the larger set of disease classes do have ancient origins, suggesting that many non-traditional animal models have the potential to be useful for studying many human disease genes. Taken together, these findings emphasize why model organism selection should be done on a disease-by-disease basis, with evolutionary profiles in mind.
Evolutionary profiling reveals the heterogeneous origins of classes of human disease genes: implications for modeling disease genetics in animals | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text

---

​Umm... they share genetic similarities because they're related - i.e. they have common ancestors. That's what "related" means.

Dredge, my man! I thought of you as I read this article. For the record, I have nothing against the RCC as a group of people, but I will never elevate one Christian Church above any other. As Christian nationalism digs in, differing views surfaceI have seen good and bad Popes. History is full of them. My personal favorite was John Paul II.

Why was JPII your favourite Pope?

Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to exist.Relatedness doesn't need the theory of UCD in order to provide practical uses in biological and medical science.You seem to have trouble accepting those facts ... it's as though you have some weird psychological dependence on the theory of UCD and can't think without it. Typical atheist, in other words. Despite all your Darwinist rhetoric, you can't cite even one example of the theory of UCD providing a practical use in biological or medical science.The theory of UCD works well as an atheist bedtime story, but it's done nothing to advance science in any practical way.

There is no issue of need, the reality is that UCD explains the relatedness. And yet we use UCD anyway, because it explains the relatedness. Well, you suck at making psychological assessments. I recognize reality and would rather describe it accurately, than distort it as you do. Despite your creationist rhetoric, you have not offered a single plausible explanation for the relatedness that we see in the life on this planet, UCD explains it all wrapped with a nice bow.Your prayers are not convincing anyone.
​

I feel sorry for the anti-Catholic pastors mentioned in that article and the gullible crowds who listen to them.Satan has thoroughly deceived them ... which probably wasn't that hard, considering the prevalence of mental illness in evangelical so-called Christianity.

more Dredgings: So you seem to CONCEDE that relatedness is needed. Good boy.But how do you KNOW they're related, Dredge?
Here, I'll answer for you: Since you are the one who is making the claim of NOT needing UCD, you have to provide evidence to support your claim.So to provide an example of relatedness NOT needing UCD, you now have to provide 2 or more separately
occurring instances of DNA that originated in the primordial organic molecular past, from different ancestors,
that are now miraculously close enough to be considered to be "related".Go for it! The Nobel Committee is waiting. Or not....Game, Set and Match. Give it up, dude. You LOST.

You still have no idea what my argument is about. Are you joking or are you really this dumb?

Then please tell us what pattern of similarities we should see if UCD is true if it isn't a tree-like pattern of similarities.From where I sit, the pattern of relatedness is exactly what we would expect from UCD and evolution. Prove me wrong. I already did that.

quote:

---

We used a comparative genomics approach encompassing a broad phylogenetic range of animals with sequenced genomes to determine the evolutionary patterns exhibited by human genes associated with different classes of disease. Our results support previous claims that most human disease genes are of ancient origin but, more importantly, we also demonstrate that several specific disease classes have a significantly large proportion of genes that emerged relatively recently within the metazoans and/or vertebrates. An independent assessment of the synonymous to non-synonymous substitution rates of human disease genes found in mammals reveals that disease classes that arose more recently also display unexpected rates of purifying selection between their mammalian and human counterparts.
​
Conclusions
Our results reveal the heterogeneity underlying the evolutionary origins of (and selective pressures on) different classes of human disease genes. For example, some disease gene classes appear to be of uncommonly recent (i.e., vertebrate-specific) origin and, as a whole, have been evolving at a faster rate within mammals than the majority of disease classes having more ancient origins. The novel patterns that we have identified may provide new insight into cases where studies using traditional animal models were unable to produce results that translated to humans. Conversely, we note that the larger set of disease classes do have ancient origins, suggesting that many non-traditional animal models have the potential to be useful for studying many human disease genes. Taken together, these findings emphasize why model organism selection should be done on a disease-by-disease basis, with evolutionary profiles in mind.
Evolutionary profiling reveals the heterogeneous origins of classes of human disease genes: implications for modeling disease genetics in animals | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text

---

Drudge is a classic ignorant creo troll. Makes outlandish claims, then shown he is wrong, demands more evidence. Then when presented with evidence demands different or more specific evidence which is then presented. This process continues til the troll claims victory and makes a new outlandish claim.