|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge 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. Prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: You want me to prove a negative? The fact of the matter is that they used UCD to discover the role of toll-like receptors in the human genome. You asked for examples. This is one of them.
But you can't prove that it was "through common descent" that scientists determined how TLRs work. It was because of UCD that they hypothesized toll proteins would have the same function in humans as it does in fruit flies.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
An analogy for this thread:
Frank: Airplanes are useless as modes of transportation.Abe: That's not true. I flew in an airplane from Boston to Atlanta, and it worked great. Frank: That doesn't count since you could have driven in a car from Boston to Atlanta. Abe: But I didn't drive in a car. I flew in an airplane. Frank: Well, you didn't have to fly, so airplanes are still useless. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: That is pure speculation ... no one can possibly know "how evolution has endowed different species with similar traits". "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."--Mark Twain Sorry, but refusing to accept reality is not a valid refutation. We can know, and we do know.
"we predict"? "we expect"? Is that all the author has to offer ... wishful thinking? It's called a hypothesis, otherwise known as "doing science". Now you are rejecting science as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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. And I have given you examples of just that. Your response?
An "hypothesis" per se is just an idea floating around in someone's mind, not a practical use. It is absolutely a practical use. Finding routes for research is a very, very practical application for any theory.
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? The practical use is in selecting animal models that will yield the best results in biomedical research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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. False. Scientists apply phylogenies which are based on evolutionary histories.
Darwinist propaganda in that passage, as if none of the knowledge described could have been gained without recognizing the "evolutionary connections". The knowledge was gained through our understanding of evolution and the evolutionary history of life. It appears my analogy was dead on: Frank: Airplanes are useless as modes of transportation.Abe: That's not true. I flew in an airplane from Boston to Atlanta, and it worked great. Frank: That doesn't count since you could have driven in a car from Boston to Atlanta. Abe: But I didn't drive in a car. I flew in an airplane. Frank: Well, you didn't have to fly, so airplanes are still useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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. You lack the common sense to understand why there is no reason for a mammal group to even exist if separate creation is true. There is absolutely no reason why a nested hierarchy should exist within creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Your comment, although entertaining, didn't answer my question. "Why do you need to believe that all life shares a common ancestor to examine and compare the DNA of humans and other animals?"--Dredge Wrong question. There is no "need to believe". You either want to understand how biology or you don't. That's the choice. If you want to understand biology then evolution and UCD are the best tools for understanding biology. If you don't want to understand biology and instead protect a failing theology, then you make the arguments you are making. It's a choice, not a need. For example, can you explain why there is more sequence conservation in exons than in introns when we align orthologous sequence between disparate species? What can we use from ID/creationism to help explain this pattern? I can't think of anything. However, this is EXACTLY the pattern of sequence conservation we would expect from evolution and UCD. Exactly. What about the pattern of base substitutions? Can ID/creationism explain to us why we see more transitions than transversions when we compare single nucleotide polymorphisms between different species? No. Evolution and UCD can, and they allow us to understand what we are seeing in biology. What about the pattern of shared and derived features? Can ID/creationism explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of some other pattern? No. However, this pattern is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution and UCD are true. Those concepts allow us to understand what we are seeing in biology. I could go on and on and on. You either want to understand biology or you want to protect a failed theology. Your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Show me a scientific paper that says animal models are used because of UCD. I already did that. https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=902182#m902183
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
dwise1 writes: One of the funniest things about "creation science" is how much effort leading creationists have to put into explaining away why the evidence looks for all the world like evolution. That comes from their raison d'etre for participating in these discussions. Are ID/creationists interested in actually figuring out why we see what we do? No. They are here to protect their beliefs. ID/creationists aren't interested in explanations. They are interested in beliefs. Science, on the other hand, is all about explanations, beliefs be damned. This is why you see people like Dredge who use phrases like "need to believe". That's just not how it works. It is projection on the part of ID/creationists. As is true of many other areas of life, what people accuse others of is often a strong clue as to what those accusers are actually doing themselves. ID/creationists have a dogmatic belief that must be adhered to, so they assume it is the same for scientists. They never stop and think that scientists follow the evidence without reference to beliefs. Instead, we see ID/creationists labelling theories with "-isms" while calling them religions. Why? They are trying to level the playing field, and/or battling their own cognitive dissonance which is often the source of projection. For Dredge, UCD has to be a belief because his worldview just can't cope with UCD being an evidenced based conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Phat writes: This sounded so outlandish that I had to investigate. All life shares a common ancestor. If you pick any two species you can trace their family tree back until you arrive at that shared ancestor. The shared ancestor between potatoes and humans, or rather animals and plants, would be a simpler single celled eukaryote, something along the lines of modern protists. The shared ancestor would be neither a potato nor a human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Those researchers wouldn't know ... they're just guessing. Their proposal can't be tested and is therefore worthless as science. It can be tested by measuring phylogenetic signal in shared DNA sequences. The fact that you have to pretend that this evidence doesn't exist says quite a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Hilarious. It's amazing how many people believe that Darwinoid superstition ... an atheist fairy tale foisted on the gullible masses by atheist scientists. Anyone who reads this thread will see that all you have is mockery, and a complete inability to address the evidence that has been presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Anyone who thinks they know how "early life" evolved Message 1133 is delusional ... or worse. Darwinoid scientists are amongst the most egregious bs-artists and con-men on the planet. So you can't address the evidence we are presenting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: You think me asking for a practical use for UCD in medical science or applied biology is the same as asking for evidence of UCD itself Message 1152. Ignoring the evidence you asked for is a classic creationist move.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024