Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Stile writes at the end: damn, that would be nice! but hard to live through in order to get there.

dredging: So you're kind of arguing that just because rocks on a beach gradually all get rounded doesn't mean they all came from one ancient rock? like "Here was one big rock that broke apart and all the pieces got rounded off and over there was a different rock and all of its pieces got rounded off. Can you tell which big rock any rounded off piece came from?"Well, we could analyze the chemical composition in great detail, say similar to getting as much detail as the whole DNA genome of some animal all mapped out, and then compare with a sample of each of the 2 big rocks which we know are different in some way (e.g. one is quartz, the other is granite) and see which matched the best. easy peasy.But the problem with DNA from different species/phyla/plant-animal is that the differences in the DNA is too small to say which the specimen is most closely related to, unless you account for the small differences by the natural history. Plant vs. animal might be the easiest place to start. But even here they have been determined to both use DNA, leading one to think that when DNA arrived in one of the organic molecule pre-life candidates, such as ones they've detected in galactic clouds or in asteroids or comets, its overwhelming robust copying DNA mechanism eventually flooded out all the other myriad combining mechanisms that failed to form life and faded into the dirt landscape. Okay, I'll concede there is a lot of quartz (not a pre-life organic molecule). But we're talking about life, not inanimate things. "All life is made of DNA" would be analogous to finding out that "every rounded rock was made of quartz". The odds on just two or more different pre-life combining systems both coming up with this long, double helix DNA are so astronomically small, while not ZERO, that they make UCD the obvious best explanation. Sure, zillions of systems were being cast into the cauldron of nature's fire to see who would survive, and only the DNA system survived. All it took was one.And to Falsify Evolution, all you need to do is find a single life form that doesn't use the DNA/RNA system. Viruses are not called life in some circles, but I call them life. And they use the system, because, like Bill Gates, it has backdoors.

dredge says: i don't care about that, as it was answered abundantly many times.It was your 2nd question i was addressing.
in fact i quoted that 2nd question in my post to clarify that.

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.

Ringo writes: Aw....that is being nice. In reality it is far worse.It's ASSFUCKED. He's so fucked he doesn't even know how ASSFUCKED he is.This is Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

Dredge, isn't this your argument?
Yes or no:

deleted this copy, posted twice due to very slow internet.

dredge writesL I'll take that as a Yes. i was almost ready to cite your post claiming that.OK, now......next...think carefully...no "just so" stories:

Dredge answers: Oh no! almost right. Similarities in genetics is all you want, since the other two can and will lead you astray.For example, which is closer to a coyote,a chihuahua or a hyena? is a hyena more related to a coyote or a mongoose?Genetics is all you need. And genetics is the knowledge of the DNA.So comparing similarity in DNA is the answer.Wouldn't you agree?
Yes or No....

Dredge concedes: OK. Now go back and read Message 972 carefully again.

Dredgings: Scientists don't work from a position of what they believe, they work from the evidence.In your hypothetical case, changing your wording to "If no one had known about UCD...", then, yes, the similarities would still exist, waiting to be discovered by scientists. But also then no one would be working on finding new medicines using DNA similarities either. They would even still be in the dark about DNA existing, let alone having similarities.

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!!!!

Dredgings: NO!
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.Come on! Get on it!

Dredgings: zero? where the fuck do you think any of us have said that?

more Dredgings that are getting bombed into oblivion: 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-DNA
system fairly intensively, wouldn't you say?Now stating that using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD is like
stating 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).