Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

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.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 ...

You want me to prove a negative? 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.

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. "we predict"? "we expect"? Is that all the author has to offer ... wishful thinking?

If you're trying to compare religion to science, you're in the wrong thread.

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.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?​

Irrelevant to the discussion ... as usual.Assume that I accept UCD ... that will help keep you on track ... but then you won't have anything to say.​

... an APauling testament to your lack of discernment, your inability to learn and your on-going struggle with cognitive dissonance.

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!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 MedicineYour 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. I love the gratuitous
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.
​

Not everyone who accepts that life on earth has evolved accepts that neo-Darwinism offers a satisfactory explanation for that evolution.In other words, not all evolutionists are Darwinoids (aka Darwinists).

Isn't it about time you admitted the obvious ... that you're even more retarded than I am?

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 find it very very difficult to believe that you ever had a friend and that you ever went to college.Are you lying?

What is "separate creation" and when did I claim it's true?Do you think I take the Genesis account of creation literally? ... 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.

Show me a scientific paper that says animal models are used because of UCD.

????????