Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Again, it is the pattern of similarities that matter. Before we understood the molecular basis of heredity or shared ancestry there were already people who recognized the nested hierarchial pattern. For example, Linnaeus discovered this pattern 100 years before Darwin. The nested hierarchy is an objective fact.

quote:

---

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

That quote is from 1882. That's how long the evidence has been around for shared ancestry.

All of those quotes are backed by the knowledge that the similarities were produced by common ancestry and evolution. That's why those similarities are useful. Speaking as someone who works in biomedical research, UCD is what makes those similarities useful. Conservation of sequence is something that has become quite important in comparing animal models. It is entirely relevant, whether you admit it or not.

Zebrafish are used as models in medical science. Birds aren't often used because they are expensive to house and have longer generation times.Why Use Zebrafish to Study Human Diseases? | NIH Intramural Research Program The only reason that some animals are objectively more like humans than others is UCD and evolution. There is no reason why such a pattern would exist if species were created separately. It is only the nested hierarchy produced by UCD and evolution that we get these relationships.

​
I'm betting you never searched papers to see if this is true?

quote:

---

We used a comparative genomics approach encompassing a broad phylogenetic range of animals with sequenced genomes to determine the evolutionary patterns exhibited by human genes associated with different classes of disease. Our results support previous claims that most human disease genes are of ancient origin but, more importantly, we also demonstrate that several specific disease classes have a significantly large proportion of genes that emerged relatively recently within the metazoans and/or vertebrates. An independent assessment of the synonymous to non-synonymous substitution rates of human disease genes found in mammals reveals that disease classes that arose more recently also display unexpected rates of purifying selection between their mammalian and human counterparts.

​

Conclusions
Our results reveal the heterogeneity underlying the evolutionary origins of (and selective pressures on) different classes of human disease genes. For example, some disease gene classes appear to be of uncommonly recent (i.e., vertebrate-specific) origin and, as a whole, have been evolving at a faster rate within mammals than the majority of disease classes having more ancient origins. The novel patterns that we have identified may provide new insight into cases where studies using traditional animal models were unable to produce results that translated to humans. Conversely, we note that the larger set of disease classes do have ancient origins, suggesting that many non-traditional animal models have the potential to be useful for studying many human disease genes. Taken together, these findings emphasize why model organism selection should be done on a disease-by-disease basis, with evolutionary profiles in mind.
Evolutionary profiling reveals the heterogeneous origins of classes of human disease genes: implications for modeling disease genetics in animals | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text

---

Then please tell us what pattern of similarities we should see if UCD is true if it isn't a tree-like pattern of similarities.From where I sit, the pattern of relatedness is exactly what we would expect from UCD and evolution. Prove me wrong. I already did that.

quote:

---

We used a comparative genomics approach encompassing a broad phylogenetic range of animals with sequenced genomes to determine the evolutionary patterns exhibited by human genes associated with different classes of disease. Our results support previous claims that most human disease genes are of ancient origin but, more importantly, we also demonstrate that several specific disease classes have a significantly large proportion of genes that emerged relatively recently within the metazoans and/or vertebrates. An independent assessment of the synonymous to non-synonymous substitution rates of human disease genes found in mammals reveals that disease classes that arose more recently also display unexpected rates of purifying selection between their mammalian and human counterparts.
​
Conclusions
Our results reveal the heterogeneity underlying the evolutionary origins of (and selective pressures on) different classes of human disease genes. For example, some disease gene classes appear to be of uncommonly recent (i.e., vertebrate-specific) origin and, as a whole, have been evolving at a faster rate within mammals than the majority of disease classes having more ancient origins. The novel patterns that we have identified may provide new insight into cases where studies using traditional animal models were unable to produce results that translated to humans. Conversely, we note that the larger set of disease classes do have ancient origins, suggesting that many non-traditional animal models have the potential to be useful for studying many human disease genes. Taken together, these findings emphasize why model organism selection should be done on a disease-by-disease basis, with evolutionary profiles in mind.
Evolutionary profiling reveals the heterogeneous origins of classes of human disease genes: implications for modeling disease genetics in animals | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text

---

They haven't failed. Your refusal to accept facts doesn't make the facts go away.

You didn't disprove any of them. Those are four valid examples of common descent having application in medicine.

I already did that in each of those messages.

Obviously, yes.In the same way, stellar parallax would still exist if no one believed in Heliocentrism. The procession in Mercury's orbit would still exist if no one believed in Relativity.What wouldn't exist if no one believed in UCD is an explanation as to why those genetic similarities fell into a nested hierarchy.

Ignoring the facts won't make them go away.

But why would those similarities produce a nested hierarchy if pixies, aliens, or fairies produced them?We can observe UCD and evolution in action in both the lab and in the wild. We observe that those mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy is exactly what we would expect from this process, and that is exactly what we see in nature. There is no other explanation that specifically predicts that we should see this pattern of genetic similarities.

quote:

---

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

False. It is the conservation of function due to UCD and evolution that makes them useful. No such expectation is expected from other proposed processes. It also allows us to find novel human features by looking for different patterns of sequence conservation. It's the nested hierarchy that evidences UCD, not simply genetic similarities.

UCD is a conclusion based on the evidence of a nested hierarchy of similarities, a nested hierarchy that you continue to ignore.

Still not addressing the fact of the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities.

I think we already know that you consider facts to be irrelevant.Apparently, you still don't understand how the scientific method works. We are testing the hypothesis of common descent. That hypothesis predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy of similarities. When we observe nature and see exactly what the hypothesis predicts we have a supported hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude common descent. We now have a supported theory.That's how science works.If you want to challenge this conclusion then you need to produce a better explanation for the nested hierarchy.

Then all you are interested in is empty rhetoric, it would appear.