Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

If life didn't evolve there is no reason why we would expect to observe a nested hierarchy. We do observe a nested hierarchy, and this is what evidences evolution.

Yes. It's called research. They are using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses in biomedical research. That is a practical use. That's what science is, theorizing.

So you accept common ancestry within phyla?Oh, by the way, entire phyla and kingdoms are rooted by phylogenies of shared genes.Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications - PubMed

You can't even stay consistent. The nested hierarchy is a fact, just like genetic similarities. The nested hierarchy is there whether anyone accepts UCD or not.Also, scientists concluded that all life shares a common ancestor because of the universal nested hierarchy. The observed fact led to the conclusion. Before this point, UCD was still a big question. It could have been that life had multiple origins, but that is not where the evidence led. In fact, Darwin himself did not assume UCD.

quote:

---

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
--Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"

---

All you are doing is beating up on strawmen.

No. I never said any such thing.Perhaps you could address what I actually said?

No, it isn't. You can keep swinging away at your strawmen, or you can actually address what people are saying.

Guiding research is a very practical use, whether you like it or not.

The blind leading the blind.

Tangible benefits come from research which is guided by UCD.

Tons and tons of diseases. Anything that uses an animal model.

Animals models are used because of UCD.

That's because of UCD. It isn't irrelevant.

quote:

---

. Darwin’s description of “descent with modification” points to two aspects of evolution that can help us assess the matching between a prospective model species and its intended target. One is trees that represent the structure of phylogenetic relationships; the other is phenotypic traits, i.e. the unique characteristics of each species’ evolved biology and natural history. Mapping traits onto a phylogeny is the first step toward analyzing the source of similarities between a target and a potential model. Whether similar traits arise from shared ancestry or from adaptive convergence has important implications for what kinds of inferences can be justified, and for the likely translatability of findings.
Evolution offers both a rich source of possible models, and guidance for choosing the best ones for a given purpose. Considering model choice from an evolutionary angle not only helps to answer the question “What species might be a good model for studying x?” but also suggests additional questions we should be asking to assess the utility of both potential and current models. Recognizing the diverse ways model organisms can function expands our search image as we seek species to study that can both extend general knowledge, and generate translatable insights relevant to human neurobiology and disease.
Selection of Models: Evolution and the Choice of Species for Translational Research - FullText - Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2019, Vol. 93, No. 2-3 - Karger Publishers

---

A perfect example of why creationism is a science stopper. All Dredge thinks one should do is just measure stuff. Explain it? OH NOOOOO, CAN'T DO THAT!!! Apply the scientific method? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

NASA is able to get satellites to orbit the Earth even though there are Flat Earthers. You can continue to deny basic findings in science, but that doesn't change the reality.

Scientists do accept UCD, and that helps guide their research into vaccines, virology, and immunology. Your refusal to accept these facts does not make them go away. The development of the vaccines required a lot of animal models and understanding of innate and adaptive immunity. Innate immunity was especially important, and our current knowledge is based on phylogenetic analyses of eukaryotes. For example, our understanding of toll-like receptors (TLRs) is based on phylogenetics. These receptors were first discovered in fruit flies, and through common descent we were able to determine how they worked in humans and other mammals. TLR7, specifically, is especially important for understanding the current mRNA vaccines:

quote:

---

RNA sensors such as Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) and MDA5 are triggered by the mRNA vaccines, and TLR9 is the major double-stranded DNA sensor for the AdV vaccine. The resultant activated DCs present antigen and co-stimulatory molecules to S protein-specific naive T cells, which become activated and differentiated into effector cells to form cytotoxic T lymphocytes or helper T cells. T follicular helper (TFH) cells help S protein-specific B cells to differentiate into antibody-secreting plasma cells and promote the production of high affinity anti-S protein antibodies.
COVID-19 vaccines: modes of immune activation and future challenges | Nature Reviews Immunology

---