|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: More bs. The blind leading the blind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
You should publish your findings...alert the world.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
A research hypothesis that fails to produce an improvement in the treatment of disease is also a useless failure ... not a practical use of anything. Dredge, stay off those meat-crackers. They make you think stupid stuff. There are no failures in any experiment in science. The results may not be as expected, and it's leaders may convey some disappointment, but like the Michelson–Morley "failures", null results speak volumes. Think before you inset cracker, Dredge. This is a well known and well celebrated feature of science. When we get unexpected results, when we get "failures", we learn a great deal from these "mistakes". Some of our greatest discoveries were found after years of analysing "failed" experiments. We learn from our "unproductivity". It seems you never acquired that skill. You keep making the same mistakes over and over ...Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
And you keep getting stupider and stupider. Did you think at all before you bleated out that stupidity? Medical research that fails to produce an improvement in the treatment of disease is a useless failure ... When a program of research "fails" to produce a miracle cure, how can you possibly know what offshoots might come from that research? Do you think the researchers just burn their notebooks and go home? All science is built on what came before.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
You're digressing. The discussion is not about theorectical approaches to research ... it's about tangible benefits in the treatment of disease. Guiding research is a very practical use There's nothing "practical" about using a theoretical guide for medical research that's hitherto produced zero improvements in the treatment of disease. "using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses" Message 1077 as a research guide has not resulted in any medical benefits for anyone. So far that particular "guide" has proven blind and useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You're digressing. The discussion is not about theorectical approaches to research ... it's about tangible benefits in the treatment of disease. Tangible benefits come from research which is guided by UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Which tangible improvement in the treatment of which disease has resulted from research guided by UCD?
Tangible benefits come from research which is guided by UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: Which tangible improvement in the treatment of which disease has resulted from research guided by UCD? Tons and tons of diseases. Anything that uses an animal model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: Using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD. Animals models are used because of UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD "Driving a car doesn't require accepting nuts and bolts." Say it again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
more Dredgings that are getting bombed into oblivion:
Using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD. Getting back to the best evidence of UCD, DNA... So which animal research doesn't require examining the DNA? Now why would that be?Remember: You have already conceded that relatedness is measured by the similarity of DNA. You wanted an example. COVID-19 with the mRNA vaccines would seem to use the RNA-DNAsystem fairly intensively, wouldn't you say? Now stating that using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD is likestating that using animal models doesn't require examining their DNA. It's like building a house without a tape measure or yardstick or ruler or even your armlength (say, about a cubit)."I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
1105
Taq writes:
That is incorrect ... animal models are used bcoz they're genetically and physiologically similar to humans. Animals models are used because of UCD. The history of how they came to genetically and physiologically similar to humans is irrelevant to their utility. Your argument is analogous to this:In order for a dentist to fix teeth, he must know how teeth evolved ... which is nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: That is incorrect ... animal models are used bcoz they're genetically and physiologically similar to humans. That's because of UCD.
The history of how they came to genetically and physiologically similar to humans is irrelevant to their utility. It isn't irrelevant.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
And the history of how YOU came to be genetically and physiologically similar to your grandmother is irrelevant too? The history of how they came to genetically and physiologically similar to humans is irrelevant to their utility.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024