|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
In other words, you have nothing to support your claim that Covid vaccines work because of UCD Message 1127.
No. Go find it yourself.UCD is now the default position in evolution. You want to kill it, you do the work. The evidence for common descent is available
More evasion. My question doesn't concern evidence for UCD. I want to know how the theory of UCD has made a practical contribution to medical or biological science. Do try and keep on-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
What does any of that have to do with the discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
That's not how it works. You made the claim, so the onus is on YOU to provide evidence that supports it. No. Go find it yourself.If you can't provide a scientific paper that supports your claim that Covid vaccines work because of UCD Message 1127, why should I believe you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Why are you talking about evidence for UCD? I think you must be in the wrong thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
I'm not demanding that anyone "back up" UCD. UCD is the default position in all science. It is ridiculous to demand that anybody "back it up". I asked the poster to provide a scientific paper that says Covid vaccines work bcoz of UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No, the answer is common DNA. Finding model animals with similar DNA to humans doesn't require the theory of UCD. So when medical science uses animal models to test drugs they choose animals that are the likeliest to react to them the same way as humans - which assumes genetic similarity. Without any knowledge of evolution (the UCD is a conclusion drawn from the ToE) it would be logical to choose chimps as models but why would you also choose pigs? Or a fruit fly? The answer is common relatedness. A scientist who rejects UCD could find model animals with similar DNA to humans just as competently as a scientist who accepts UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The article says "Animal models are based on the principle of comparative medicine that animals share physiological, pathological, behavioral, or many more other characteristics with humans".
Animal Models in Pharmacology: A Brief History Awarding the Nobel Prizes for Physiology or Medicine - FullText - Pharmacology 2021, Vol. 106, No. 7-8 - Karger Publishers So without the relatedness of all species, the animal models that all drug researchers use would not work
It doesn't say anything about animal models being based on UCD. You've got it arse-about-face:The similarities that exist between humans and model animals don't need the theory of UCD, but the theory of UCD needs the similarities that exist between humans and model animals. the relatedness of all species is due to common descent.
Medicine doesn't care if "the relatedness of all species is due to common descent" or not. If the fossil record didn't exist and no one had ever thought of UCD, it wouldn't make any difference to medical science.
Modern medicine depends on UCD simply being a fact.
Simply bullshit. Your explanation for why certain animals share physiological, pathological, behavioral, or many more other characteristics with humans is irrelevant and useless to medicine. Medicine works due to the utilization of facts, and owes nothing to useless Darwinist folklore like the theory of UCD.
But even if it didn't, even if it had no clue that all life descended from a common ancestor, it would still be fact.
UCD no doubt serves as a comforting bedtime story for atheists, but medicine has no use for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling666 writes:
I'm yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
And you know this how?
Can you cite any papers attesting to this indifference by medicine to the descent of life?
​That's like asking me to cite papers attesting to the indifference by medicine to the Tooth Fairy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[APauling666]In other words you have nothing. [/qs]
On the contrary, I have an argument that has yet to be countered by any conflicting evidence.
And speaking of having "nothing", I'm still waiting for you to provide a scientific opinion that supports your claim that Covid vaccines work due to UCD. I suspect my wait will be a long one ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes: On the contrary, I have an argument that has yet to be countered by any conflicting evidence. In other words you have nothing. ​ And speaking of having "nothing", I'm still waiting for you to provide a scientific opinion that supports your claim that Covid vaccines work due to UCD. I suspect my wait will be a long one ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
On the contrary, I accept that the theory of UCD is the best scientific explanation for the evidence ... for what it's worth. The fact you can't accept common descent is an intellectual failure. I also accept that science cannot explain the miracle of God's creation, so the "best scientific explanation for the evidence" will always be far from the truth and therefore worthless. The fact you can't accept divine creation is a reality failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I've been saying that for years. You haven't been paying attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
wrongsmith writes:
Oh, I get what you mean ... if scientists don't accept that RNA-DNA is the result of Universal Common Descent, RNA-DNA will change or perhaps cease to exist and the vaccines won't work. The vaccines use the RNA-DNA mechanism that was originated by the Universal Common Descent organism. So in order for the vaccine's "RNA-DNA mechanism" to work, scientists must first accept UCD. That's fascinating. What if the person receiving the vaccine doesn't accept UCD? Will the vaccine still work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
Oh yeah ... if no one believed in UCD, no drugs or vaccines could be developed. Your idiotic Darwinist bs is embarrassing.
For pharmaceuticals the worth was $1.4 trillion in 2021.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Oh, I get what you mean ... if scientists don't accept that RNA-DNA is the result of Universal Common Descent, RNA-DNA will change or perhaps cease to exist and the vaccines won't work.wrongsmith writes:
Wait ... you're saying that, whether scientists accept the theory of UCD or not, the vaccine's "RNA-DNA mechanism" Message 1168 if scientists don't accept it, it cannot change whether it exists, you stupid.and they cannot retroactively change the efficacy of a vaccine either, you dumbo. will remain the same and will still work? If so, that means that - whether scientists accepted the theory of UCD or not - they would still have been able to develop the vaccine in the first place, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024