|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
More Darwinist delusion. Wake up, Dopey ... scientists didn't need the theory of UCD to determine how TRLs work in fruit flies, humans or any other mammal. 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. When you were a little boy, someone told you that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of UCD ... and you still believe it! Hey, do you still believe in Santa as well?
Not a word in that article about common descent. Golly gee, what a surprise ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
You want me to prove a negative?
Prove it.Prove it.
Speaking of which ... In Message 1184 you made this claim:"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." (emphasis added) But you can't prove that it was "through common descent" that scientists determined how TLRs work. As usual, all you've done is make a bare assertion. You've repeatedly failed to support your delusion with facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
That is pure speculation ... no one can possibly know "how evolution has endowed different species with similar traits". Basing research models on pure speculation sounds like a very dumb idea to me.
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 ... Phylogenetic trees provide such context not only by highlighting phenotypic differences and similarities, but also by supporting inferences about the source of similarity. Understanding how evolution has endowed different species with similar traits is relevant both to the initial choice of model for studying a particular question, and then to the interpretation (and potential translation) of results. The two evolutionary routes to similarity are (1) shared ancestry, or homology, and (2) a history of common selection pressures, leading to convergence."
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
"Even though the distinction between homology-based and convergence-based models is not absolute, it offers a useful heuristic for thinking about how we select and employ them. Similarity due to homology and that due to convergence lead to different warrants for extrapolation, and disparate expectations for wider matching. In the case of similarity due to homology, we predict better overall representation of the model species’ closer phylogenetic relatives, a better warrant for expecting similarity in additional traits that share ancestry, and stronger inference to closer relatives. In contrast, similarities between model and target that are due to convergence generate different predictions. Here, we expect better representation of other species subject to similar selective pressures, and a stronger warrant for expecting similarity in additional traits with related adaptive functions – but no inferential premium for relatives
"we predict"? "we expect"? Is that all the author has to offer ... wishful thinking?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If you're trying to compare religion to science, you're in the wrong thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Do try and keep on topic. The discussion is not about an "hypothesis" or "doing science" ... it's about a practical use in medical science or biology for the theory of UCD. It's called a hypothesis, otherwise known as "doing science". An "hypothesis" per se is just an idea floating around in someone's mind, not a practical use. If the article you provided in Message 1109 describes a practical use in medical science or biology for the theory of UCD, what is it, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
Irrelevant to the discussion ... as usual. As you have shown us, accepting the preponderance of the evidence also sounds like a very dumb idea to you. Assume that I accept UCD ... that will help keep you on track ... but then you won't have anything to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling writes:
... an APauling testament to your lack of discernment, your inability to learn and your on-going struggle with cognitive dissonance.
In almost 400 messages here you haven't said anything
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Yeah, right ... in fact, the theory of UCD was so crucial that none of the researchers mentioned in the article say anything about it. LOL!
It was because of UCD that they hypothesized toll proteins would have the same function in humans as it does in fruit flies. On the contrary, the article describes how Medzhitov noticed (from Hoffman's work) "that flies with defects in their toll genes became hypersusceptible to fungal infection." That observation gave Medzhitov the idea that toll genes might act as a sensor, and he then applied that idea to the human immune system. So what Medzhitov performed was simply an exercise in comparative physiology ... which doesn't require the theory of UCD. "Janeway and Medzhitov could barely contain their delight. Could their human toll perform the same antifungal tour de force? Immediately, Medzhitov set to work. In essence, he wanted to know if human toll functioned as a sensor—a molecular scout for microbes—as well as a signaler to the adaptive immune system. After a year of experimentation, the answer to both questions was a resounding yes." The History Behind The Discovery of toll-like Receptors < Yale School of Medicine Your problem seems to be that you're conflating evidence for the theory of UCD with a practical use for the theory of UCD ... as if they're one and the same thing.
"Two and a half years later, the idea of innate immunity in humans and its connections to defense in invertebrates had already taken hold. At least 150 scientists gathered at a National Academy of Sciences colloquium in Irvine, Calif., entitled “Virulence and Defense in Host-Pathogen Interactions: Common Features between Plants and Animals.” At the meeting, 12 researchers specifically discussed their work on toll in flies and “toll-like receptors”—as the mammalian versions are now known—and other aspects of innate immunity. Two dozen other scientists focused on patterns common to the insect and mammalian pathogens.
I love the gratuitous By March 2001, scientists had found 10 other human toll-like receptors, including toll-like receptor 2, which Shizuo Akira, MD, and colleagues at Osaka University showed responds to a particular sequence found in bacterial DNA but not in mammalian DNA. To get an idea of how fast the field has grown since 1997, a literature search for the term “toll-like receptor” in 2022 brought up more than 56,000 abstracts. The evolutionary connections also awed researchers, as they eventually found toll-like molecules in worms, mice, even plants. Plant geneticist Santosh Misra, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Victoria in British Columbia genetically engineered antimicrobial peptides into potatoes to get the crops to withstand fungal infection. Protective compounds produced by plants could conceivably work as new classes of antibiotics in people as well."The History Behind The Discovery of toll-like Receptors < Yale School of Medicine Darwinist propaganda in that passage, as if none of the knowledge described could have been gained without recognizing the "evolutionary connections". That sort of Darwinist spin reminds me of David Attenborough's nature shows. Due to his missionary zeal, Attenborough can't simply present a nature show ... he's got to ram a sermon about Darwinian evolution down viewers throats as well, as if it's vitally important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes:
Not everyone who accepts that life on earth has evolved accepts that neo-Darwinism offers a satisfactory explanation for that evolution. why do critics of evolution always refer to the study as Darwinism? In other words, not all evolutionists are Darwinoids (aka Darwinists).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringoat writes:
Isn't it about time you admitted the obvious ... that you're even more retarded than I am?
An IQ of 9 would suggest that YOU are the one with a lack of discernment, an inability to learn and an on-going struggle with cognitive dissonance. You really should never have admitted to being so stupid. It colors everything you say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringoat writes:
No need to be a UCD-believing Darwinoid to think of using cow and pig insulin in humans. All one needs is a big of common sense ... as in "Golly gee whiz, since humans are mammals, maybe insulin from other mammals - such as cows and pigs - will work in humans. Let's try it." A pretty basic idea, really.
I gave you that way, way, way, way back: Cow and pig insulin. It wasn't a creationist who thought of that. Somebody who knew about UCD said, "Hmm... maybe we can get a donations from our cousins the cows and pigs."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
wrongsmith writes:
I find it very very difficult to believe that you ever had a friend and that you ever went to college. My old friend in college ... Are you lying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
What is "separate creation" and when did I claim it's true? You lack the common sense to understand why there is no reason for a mammal group to even exist if separate creation is true. Do you think I take the Genesis account of creation literally?
There is absolutely no reason why a nested hierarchy should exist within creationism.
... an atheist claiming to know that God had no reason to create a nested hierarchy. Fascinating. You seem to have a very narrow view of creationism, which has many different interpretations. So God created nested hierarchies ... not a problem for this creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Show me a scientific paper that says animal models are used because of UCD.
Animals models are used because of UCD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
wrongsmith writes:
????????
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024