Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Prove it.

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. It was because of UCD that they hypothesized toll proteins would have the same function in humans as it does in fruit flies.

quote:

---

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.

​

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

---

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.

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."--Mark TwainSorry, but refusing to accept reality is not a valid refutation. We can know, and we do know. It's called a hypothesis, otherwise known as "doing science". Now you are rejecting science as a whole.

And I have given you examples of just that.Your response? It is absolutely a practical use. Finding routes for research is a very, very practical application for any theory. The practical use is in selecting animal models that will yield the best results in biomedical research.

False. Scientists apply phylogenies which are based on evolutionary histories. 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.

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.

"Why do you need to believe that all life shares a common ancestor to examine and compare the DNA of humans and other animals?"--DredgeWrong 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.

I already did that.https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=902182#m902183

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you can't address the evidence we are presenting?

Ignoring the evidence you asked for is a classic creationist move.