Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

You have a bad reading comprehension problem. It's not that I can't, it's that I won't.You have been given dozens of such cases upthread and all you do is deny their existence. You are a dishonest debater here only to troll. I won't play your game.See one the dozens of examples already given upthread that answer your question. And they all do. Or have you forgotten how to read along with your lack of research skills?Again, Dredge, too many jesus-meat crackers and blood aperitifs. They are rotting your brain.

The bottom line is, all you've got to offer is your UCD fantasy. How pathetic. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed.

I'm not. Not in the least. And if you were me, you would know better than to be so stupid.

Whereabouts in the article you cited does it describe the treatment of a disease being improved or created by the theory of UCD?If the article doesn't contain any such description, it's irrelevant to the discussion on this thread... but something tells me that you don't even understand that discussion, so I shouldn't be surprised by you providing an irrelevant article.

I accept the "relatedness of all species" in the sense that all species share certain genetic similarities ... which doesn't require accepting UCD.Your problem as a brainwashed Darwinoid is that you can't accept relatedness due to genetic similarities without accepting UCD as well.In other words, like all the Darwinoids, you're intellectually incapable of separating the facts (ie, the genetic similarities) the from a theory based on those facts (ie, UCD).That's why you (and Darwinoids in general) mistakenly believe the theory UCD is practically useful to medical science, when the truth is it's only the facts of genetic similarity that are practically useful to medical science. ... which means my statement is true: No one can prove that UCD is a fact.

If you want to contribute to the discussion, please cite one example of how the theory of UCD has created or improved the treatment of a disease.Do you even understand what the theory of UCD is? WTF?????? Bizarre.

To clarify, I am attempting to defend mainstream medical thought, method and theory without being labled a Darwinoid! After all, even Pope Francis defended the legitimacy of biological evolution, IIRC. I would have to look it up. BTW what do you think of Francis?

They used UCD? Really? In that case, whereabouts in the article you cited does a scientist say they "used UCD to figure out how vaccines work"?
Where does the article even mention UCD?NONE of the articles you've cited so far describe the actual creation of or improvement in a treatment for disease due to the theory of UCD.
The best you've managed to do is cite a theoretical approach to research, for which there is no evidence that it's even worth pursuing.It appears you're flogging a dead horse, but you're too proud and arrogant to admit it.

Big deal. The Pope's opinion on evolution means nothing to me. He's merely parroting the consensus of the Darwinist cult that rules the scientific community ... which also means nothing to me.Besides, I accept that life on earth has experienced great changes over vast periods of time, so in that sense I accept "evolution". The sooner he's replaced the better. The only good thing I've heard from him is when he spoke about the reality of demons and Satan ... how ironic!

They used knowledge of toll-like receptors to figure out how vaccines work, and our knowledge of toll-like receptors came from UCD. I have cited all of the relevant articles multiple times now.

I'm pretty sure I did answer that question the first time you asked it, quite a long time ago. It isn't a question of "need".The common ancestor is a fact. Nested hierarchies based on gross anatomy indicated common descent very long ago - and that fact was confirmed more recently by DNA.We don't "need" it to be a fact but it is. We can't really do anything in biology without acknowleging the fact - the evidence for that is the fact that deniers, like creationists, don't do anything in biology.

Answered many times. Cow and pig insulin improved the treatment of diabetes. We only thought of it because cows and pigs are related to us - i.e. we share a common ancestor with cows and pigs.No creationist, for the past 6000 years, has thought of anything like that. Their denial of evolution prevents them.Now YOU explain how that does not answer your question.

It does if you're not an idiot. All species sharing genetic similarities IS UCD. No rational person could. They're the same thing. You have utterly failed to show how it's possible to be related without being related. You lost that argument a very long time ago. Science doesn't try to "prove" ANYTHING. It doesn't try to prove the world is round. It just shows the evidence. It doesn't try to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. It just shows the evidence. And it doesn't try to prove that things that are related are related. It just shows the evidence.You're just piling stupidity on stupidity, trying to claim that the obvious isn't true.

Nothing means anything to you because you're an idiot. You don't understand the meaning of meaning.

So says Taq the Darwinoid con-man ... unfortunately for your lies, NONE of the scientists mentioned in the article said anything about our knowledge of toll-like receptors coming from UCD. So says Taq the Darwinoid con-man ... unfortunately for your lies,
NONE of the articles or papers you cited even mention UCD.