AZPaul3 writes:
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
Actually, he just presented a very good point there. You're just too stubbornly stupid -- and naturally stupid as well -- to realize it.
Why publish scientific papers at all? Well, it's part of research.
What do most scientists and medical researchers want to research? Examples would be:
- To discover something new.
- To work on a solution (or find a likely direction to take on a solution) to a particular problem.
- To test somebody else's research in order to either find support for it or to find problems with it, maybe even to refute it. In science, that is a very important use of research.
- To find problems in existing practices or procedures.
- To find problems with existing theory.
One reason for research that you will almost never see is to
constantly reinvent the wheel. Why?
Because it would be a completely unnecessary waste of time, effort, and money (doing research does cost money). Because doing so would be like expecting me to completely rederive all the proofs of mathematics leading up to and including the proofs for finding a derivative every time I do a problem in differential calculus (though recently, half a century after having gone through that proof before, just for fun I did perform the proof for the derivative of the term
xn -- after you've proven that, the derivative of
axn is trivial). Or to perform all the experiments for deriving Ohm's Law and the power equation every time I use them in the design of an electrical circuit.
Having to reinvent the wheel every time you need to use one is utterly stupid. The only time that one should need to go through all the proofs of mathematics is when you are learning mathematics. Same with all the formulas of physics, or with using the Periodic Table of Elements in chemistry, or with all kinds of lab procedures. Go through how they were developed and proven out
in school while you are learning them, but once you have learned them then
just use them. Until it is your turn to teach someone else.
The fact of common ancestry of species and the resultant relationships between species because of that has already been established. No further research is needed -- except for exploring certain specific relationships, but that would not be done within the field of medical research. We already know that, so we can just simply use it.
That means that the lack of explicit reinventing the wheel of common descent of species in medical research papers is they have more important things to do in that paper than to spend many of pages (hundreds, even, to do a complete job of it) to rederiving something that we already know.
However, if one could do scientific research to try to refute common ancestry. Or to show that it has no use in medical research. So why hasn't
that been done yet?
That was AZPaul3's question to you. Your only answer was that such research would be so useless that it wouldn't even have any reason for existing, like medical research into the influence of the Tooth Fairy.
So again, where are the papers attesting to your asserted indifference by medicine to the descent of life?
Of course, you are far too stubbornly stupid (and also naturally stupid) to have understood any of that. To paraphrase Marcus Lycus, because of your extreme disinterest in improving yourself you are a eunuch and you will always be a eunuch.
Of course it's wasted on you, but it's not a waste since at least everybody else can benefit from it.
Edited by dwise1, : Correction: had left out the a in " -- after you've proven [xn], the derivative of axn is trivial)"
™ Version 4.2
(1)