|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
1047/70
Dredge writes:
if no one accepted Universal Common Descent, those genetic similarities would still exist, right? Tanypteryx writes:
Okay, since those genetic similarities exist regardless of beliefs about their origins, it follows that medical science can make use of those genetic similarities, regardless of beliefs about their origins, right?
yes they would still exist regardless of beliefs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Sorry, I don't follow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
... until you get to the level of Phyla, at which point you realise that nested hierarchies exist only within Phyla. The different Phyla themselves don't collectively form a nest hierarchy, thus disproving the theory of UCD. The pattern of genetic similarities is clear and obvious for every species that has been sequenced so far. They all fit into a nested hierarchy that demonstrates inheritance and common descent. But evolutionary scientists ignore that inconvenient truth, coz it ruins one of their favourite atheist bedtime stories (UCD), thus corrupting the noble pursuit of science. The moral of the story is:You can't trust evolutionary scientists to tell the truth. Treat everything they tell you with suspicion, doubt and skepticism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Providing any such evidence would be pointless. You haven't shown any supporting evidence that genetic comparisons of phyla don't fit into a nested hierarchy. Darwinist assume UCD is a fact, therefore the entire history of life on earth forms one huge nested hierarchy. The fact that all life contains DNA is all the genetic evidence a Darwinist needs to declare that all phyla form a nested hierarchy ... which makes a farce of the concept of nested hierarchies based on genetics, I should think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Btw, I'm still waiting for your response to Message 1056.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Evidence of UCD is irrelevant to Message 1056, so I'm still waiting for your response.
medical science doesn't have to rely on beliefs because they have evidence of common descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
How?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
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?Taq writes:
I searched the scientific paper you provided for a practical application of UCD. The following quotes (with emphasis added) sum up what I found therein:
I'm betting you never searched papers to see if this is true?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 "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" .... "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" ... "From an evolutionary perspective, human disease genes tend to have particularly ancient origins, suggesting that disease-causing mutations are more often identified in “older” genes ... The implications of these observations in the context of how human disease research is conducted ARE NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD" ... "Consequently, it MAY be possible to study disease genes in a broad spectrum of animal models" ... "This analysis suggests that roughly 10% of all human disease genes could POTENTIALLY be better-studied in selected non-bilaterian species" ... "While these remote animal species are less complex than humans, it is QUITE POSSIBLE that studying the most distant forms of these genes would reveal insights into the most basic functions they evolved to perform and, by extension, their relationship to human disease" ... "Thus, this majority set of disease classes MAY also be PROMISING candidates to study in a more diverse set of animal species. Our results imply that there MAY be utility in studying disease genes that have primarily pre-vertebrate origins in non-traditional animal models" ... "Future efforts to extend and refine our analyses could THEORETICALLY produce methods that could direct an investigator to a set of model species that would be well-suited to studying a particular human disease gene or disease class. That said, there are MANY OBSTACLES that make this DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE AT THE PRESENT TIME." Did you notice the pattern of SPECULATION evident in those quotes? Where is the description of a practical application of UCD? I couldn't find one ... all I found was lots of useless Darwinist THEORIZING about what might have happened millions of years ago and lots of useless SPECULATION.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
An explanation of the relatedness is not a practical application of UCD in medical or biological science. And yet we use UCD anyway, because it explains the relatedness.Such an explanation is, in effect, just a useless story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Silence. Well, you suck at making psychological assessments. I recognize reality and would rather describe it accurately, than distort it as you do. Please be advised that you are a seriously brainwashed and clinically delusional Darwinist who is thetefore incapable of recognizing reality. You need help and possibly psychiatric medication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
wrongsmith writes:
... two fine examples of why your name has officially been changed to "wrongsmith".
Your JOB HERE is to find a single case of Medical or Biological science that reveals that UCD is NOT TRUE. And to present a single practical application that works without it, from a second descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Did you notice the pattern of SPECULATION evident in those quotes?Taq writes:
So you consider mere speculation about a hypothesis that has produced zero practical benefits be a "practical use" of UCD. Yes. It's called research. They are using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses in biomedical research. That is a practical use. Wow, that's bizarre.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
So you consider mere speculation about a hypothesis that has produced zero practical benefits be a "practical use" of UCD.Taq writes:
In effect, it is what you said. No. I never said any such thing. Perhaps you could address what I actually said? In effect, you're saying a theoretical use of UCD is a practical use of UCD. Like I said, bizarre. Which treatment of which disease has resulted from"using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses in biomedical research", as described in that paper? Message 1077
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Irrelevant to my argument.
He has to continue to lie and obfuscate otherwise he is admitting that UCD and common descent are linchpin concepts in evidence of the reality of evolution. His gutter religion cannot accept the reality of evolution and he must fight against the obvious no matter how stupid and inane his arguments.
Irrelevant to my argument. Reality is anathema to him.
Irrelevant to my argument.
Strawmen are his only arguments.
You've just presented four strawman arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Wrong, Einstein. That is a theorectical use. It becomes a practical use when it results in an improvement in the treatment of a disease. They are using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses in biomedical research. That is a practical use. So, which treatment of which disease has resulted from"using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses in biomedical research", as described in that paper? Message 1077 If you can't tell me (and you can't), you don't have a practical use. Trying to pass off a theorectical use as a practical use demonstrates that you're a typical Darwinist ... ie, a bs-artist and a con-man.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024