Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

I'm pretty sure you didn't answer that question ... all you did was make an assertion (re the use of cow and pig insulin in humans) ... no explanation was provided. Here you go again ... making an assertion with no explanation in sight.Explain why "We can't really do anything in biology without acknowleging the fact" of UCD.Explain why cow and pig insulin would not have been used in humans without the "fact" of UCD. Hilarious. Many biologists are creationists.What you mean is, no creationists are evolutionary biologists, who are the bullshit-artists, con-men and charlatans of the scientific community.

True, but as usual, you didn't answer my question. What a pity you can't cite even one scientific paper that says "We only thought of it because ... we share a common ancestor with cows and pigs."Sadly, your baseless assertions are typical of the deceitful bullshit habitually excreted by Darwinoids.​

YOU are the one who claims that nothing useful has ever come from the understanding of common descent. The use of cow and pig insulin is obviously useful and it is obviously based on the understanding of common descent. YOU are the one who needs to explain your claim that the obvious is not true. You have not said ONE WORD about what is wrong with the obvious explanation. All you have ever said was, "Nuh uh." Put up or shut up. You don't even understand that because we are related to cows and pigs, we have a common ancestor. Being related MEANS we have a common ancestor. You're agreeing with common descent in one sentence and disagreeing with it in the next sentence. You're contradicting yourself.How can anybody explain anything to an idiot like you? YOU explain why no creationist, no common-descent denier, has ever produced a useful idea about biology. Name twelve.

I answered. You didn't understand the answer. You won't find a scientific paper that says, "We only thought of it because the earth is round."Scientific papers don't work that way. You're the only one here who is sad. And of course, you don't understand why you are sad.

Some say that the Roman Catholic Church itself is a giant and ongoing cult. Our old member, Faith, used to attack them.Perhaps you could clarify how this "cult of Darwinoids" hijacked science. Next, you could explain how the entire RCC selection process for a new Pope got hijacked by the evil one. After all, Jesus even said to Peter that the gates of hell would never prevail against His church.It might help me if you shared some of the literature and source of thinking that you espouse.

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

---

"They stole the election!"

Please cite a scientific paper that states that the use of cow and pig insulin in humans would have been impossible without the theory of UCD. Please cite a scientific paper that states that no creationist or no common-descent denier has ever produced a useful idea about biology.​

I already answered that. We wouldn't expect to find any papers that say we couldn't have gotten to the moon without the theory of gravity. It's a silly demand. Likewise, we wouldn't expect to find any papers saying that the earth is not flat. It's a silly demand.The onus is on you to cite any scientific paper in which any creationist or any science-denier has ever produced any useful idea about biology.

The enemies of God's one, true Church don't know what they're talking about. It's sad to see deceived people attacking God's Church. They know not what they do.Saul of Tarsus thought he was doing God's will by attacking the Church. "Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."  A Pope parroting a story about evolution doesn't mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.If a Pope said the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church. Why would that help you?"Take me to your leader."

Nice try, con-man, but no cigar. The comments you highlighted in your quote were made by the author of the article, NOT by any of the scientists involved in the work on toll-like receptors described in the article.NONE of the scientists mentioned in the article said anything about UCD.

Toll-like receptors were first discovered in fruit flies, and through common descent they were discovered in other species, including humans. Our knowledge of toll-like receptors are vital for understanding immunology, including our knowledge of how vaccines work.Show me a single thing in the paragraph above that is not true.

Because you claim that the primary source of your "authoritative" argument comes from your covering through Gods True Church. Thus, im wondering if your sources originated through the church or if you simply favor Ken Ham and the ID proponents withot giving much of a thought about their source of information/wisdom.
​
"Take me to your liter."

In other words, you can cite the grand total of ZERO scientific papers that support your claim ... so I can safely conclude that you're a typical Darwinoid - ie, a bs-artist, a con-man and a charlatan. No, Einstein, that's not how it works ... you made the claim, so the onus is on you to back it up with some scientific evidence.But you won't, bcoz you can't, which makes you a typical Darwinoid - ie, a bs-artist, a con-man and a charlatan.

Who is Ken Ham? Does he sell pork products?Speaking of "sources", I quite like pork chops with apple source.