|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: That doesn't tell me anything.Why is the theory of UCD "fundamental" to understanding how viruses evolve? The same way nuts and bolts are fundamental to understanding how vehicles are built.It's part of the basic structure. The overview is basic logic: Living things do, in fact, evolve.And they all evolve from their ancestors. Looking at all things, we all (eventually) have common ancestors. UCD The details require years of biology study. If things were different... then UCD may not be applicable. Let's say, for example, we found that things did, in fact, evolve - but they did not evolve from their ancestors; or if we looked at groups of things and they didn't eventually have common ancestors... then the mechanisms of evolution would be different from what they are today. And the lessons we learn would be different. And all of biology would be different. And all of medicine would be different. UCD is a fundamental aspect to how the mechanisms of evolution function due to the facts we see.The vast increases in technology and knowledge in biology and medicine are due to the knowledge of the fundamental UCD ideas and applying them to further concepts/trials/experiments. Without that... we would still be moving slowly in biology and medicine - as we were before the UCD ideas were being applied and understood. Like nuts and bolts in vehicles.Can you build a vehicle without knowledge of nuts and bolts? Sure - but it will be a long learning process. If you have knowledge of nuts and bolts - can you build vehicles faster and find faster ways to build better vehicles? Absolutely. This is the fundamental understanding that UCD provides. If you want extreme details beyond simple analogies - you'll have to go to libraries and universities and look up the millions of papers and years of study everyone else does in order to have those extreme details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Medical science doesn't care if all life descended from a common ancestor or what the ancestors of viruses were doing millions of years ago, bcoz it has no practical use for such stories. Living things do, in fact, evolve.And they all evolve from their ancestors. Looking at all things, we all (eventually) have common ancestors. UCD Medical science is only interested in what viruses have been doing in recent history ... bcoz that's all that relevant and useful.
If things were different... then UCD may not be applicable. Let's say, for example, we found that things did, in fact, evolve - but they did not evolve from their ancestors; or if we looked at groups of things and they didn't eventually have common ancestors... then the mechanisms of evolution would be different from what they are today.
Mechanisms of evolution are known ... and knowing how they work and how to make practical use of them in medicine and biology doesn't require knowing anything about what happened or didn't happen millions of years ago. Therefore UCD is irrelevant to understanding the mechanisms of evolution. So stop talking crap.
And the lessons we learn would be different. And all of biology would be different. And all of medicine would be different. UCD is a fundamental aspect to how the mechanisms of evolution function due to the facts we see.The vast increases in technology and knowledge in biology and medicine are due to the knowledge of the fundamental UCD ideas and applying them to further concepts/trials/experiments.
You could cut through all your stupid Darwinist bullshit by simply providing an example of how UCD has provided a practical use in biology or medicine ... but you can't, bcoz no such use for the theory of UCD exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Medical science doesn't care if all life descended from a common ancestor or what the ancestors of viruses were doing millions of years ago, bcoz it has no practical use for such stories. Ha ha... That's like saying "Mechanics don't care if vehicles use nuts and bolts because they have no practical use for such connections."
Medical science is only interested in what viruses have been doing in recent history ... bcoz that's all that relevant and useful. That's not true either. Medical science relies on UCD in order to make all the crazy good advancements they've been doing in the last 50 years. Because it leads them in the right direction for their next experiment or trial they want to be successful with. Using UCD as a guide is what's made the crazy good/fast advancements possible - because now they understand how it works.
Mechanisms of evolution are known ... and knowing how they work and how to make practical use of them in medicine and biology doesn't require knowing anything about what happened or didn't happen millions of years ago. Therefore UCD is irrelevant to understanding the mechanisms of evolution. So stop talking crap. This is like saying "Vehicles are known to work... and knowing how to drive them on the road doesn't require knowing anything about nuts and bolts. Therefore nuts and bolts are irrelevant to understanding how vehicles work. So stop talking crap." I don't think I'm the one talking crap... You're funny
You could cut through all your stupid Darwinist bullshit by simply providing an example of how UCD has provided a practical use in biology or medicine ... but you can't, bcoz no such use for the theory of UCD exists. Examples were provided to you immediately. From Message 751:
quote: New vaccines and medicines are developed based on an understanding of UCD to understand the mechanisms of evolution.Using UCD understanding has allowed the crazy/fast creation of new medicines and vaccines we see and use today. Without it - medicine would still be in the 1950's and human population would still be 2-3 billion instead of the 8-ish billion we have now. The theory of UCD exists.It permeates all of biology and medicine. All advancements depend on it. You're talking sillyness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: You could cut through all your stupid Darwinist bullshit by simply providing an example of how UCD has provided a practical use in biology or medicine ... but you can't, bcoz no such use for the theory of UCD exists. The common ancestry of mammals and vertebrates certainly matters to medicine since everything from zebrafish to rodents to primates are used as models for how medicines will behave in humans. This includes changes in gene expression and embryonic development. The reason other species are used in biomedical research is because of common ancestry and evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Stile writes at the end:
human population would still be 2-3 billion instead of the 8-ish billion we have now. damn, that would be nice! but hard to live through in order to get there. Edited by xongsmith, : clarity "I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
Cite one example of a vaccine or medicine that required the acceptance of that theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. New vaccines and medicines are developed based on an understanding of UCD to understand the mechanisms of evolution. Explain why an understanding of UCD is necessary to understand the mechanisms of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Do certain non-human species serve as models for how medicines will behave in humans because someone believes that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor? The common ancestry of mammals and vertebrates certainly matters to medicine since everything from zebrafish to rodents to primates are used as models for how medicines will behave in humans. If no one believed that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor, would those non-human species cease to be useful as models for how medicines will behave in humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Cite one example of a vaccine or medicine that required the acceptance of that theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. "Cite one example of a vehicle that requires acceptance of nuts and bolts."-can't do it, because it's silly Nuts and bolts in vehicles work regardless of whether or not you accept them.Vaccines or medicines relying on UCD work regardless of whether or not you accept them. Vehicles will fall apart without nuts and bolts.Modern vaccines and medicines wouldn't have been discoverable without guidance from the ideas of UCD. Explain why an understanding of UCD is necessary to understand the mechanisms of evolution. You're repeating yourself. I provided your answer in Message 926:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
All you're doing is making assertions with no evidence to back them up. Any fool can do that. You've got nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: All you're doing is making assertions with no evidence to back them up. Any fool can do that. I've backed them up with facts and analogies.
You've got nothing. I've got reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes:
Do certain non-human species serve as models for how medicines will behave in humans because someone believes that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor? As I said earlier, these models are used because the animals used are thought to share common ancestry with humans. If you accept common ancestry amongst vertebrates (including humans) but are challenging common ancestry between much larger groups then now would be the time to say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
We didn't "require" relativity to get to the moon. We might have gotten there safely if we had never discovered relativity. But we did use it. Cite one example of a vaccine or medicine that required the acceptance of that theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Certain non-human species share genetic similarities with humans, which is why those species are used as models for how medicines will behave in humans. As I said earlier, these models are used because the animals used are thought to share common ancestry with humans. Tell me, how many scientists had to believe in Universal Common Descent in order for those genetic similarities to exist? 10? 20? 100? 1000? How many? Was there a critical mass?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
dredging:
how many scientists had to believe in Universal Common Descent in order for those genetic similarities to exist? So you're kind of arguing that just because rocks on a beach gradually all get rounded doesn't mean they all came from one ancient rock? like "Here was one big rock that broke apart and all the pieces got rounded off and over there was a different rock and all of its pieces got rounded off. Can you tell which big rock any rounded off piece came from?" Well, we could analyze the chemical composition in great detail, say similar to getting as much detail as the whole DNA genome of some animal all mapped out, and then compare with a sample of each of the 2 big rocks which we know are different in some way (e.g. one is quartz, the other is granite) and see which matched the best. easy peasy. But the problem with DNA from different species/phyla/plant-animal is that the differences in the DNA is too small to say which the specimen is most closely related to, unless you account for the small differences by the natural history. Plant vs. animal might be the easiest place to start. But even here they have been determined to both use DNA, leading one to think that when DNA arrived in one of the organic molecule pre-life candidates, such as ones they've detected in galactic clouds or in asteroids or comets, its overwhelming robust copying DNA mechanism eventually flooded out all the other myriad combining mechanisms that failed to form life and faded into the dirt landscape. Okay, I'll concede there is a lot of quartz (not a pre-life organic molecule). But we're talking about life, not inanimate things. "All life is made of DNA" would be analogous to finding out that "every rounded rock was made of quartz".
Life: they all use this DNA - a very complicated molecule, with its attendant complexities like RNA to message back and forth. This is the Universal Common Descent EVIDENCE in its live 3-d surround-sound technicolor. This is the smoking bullet. The odds on just two or more different pre-life combining systems both coming up with this long, double helix DNA are so astronomically small, while not ZERO, that they make UCD the obvious best explanation. Sure, zillions of systems were being cast into the cauldron of nature's fire to see who would survive, and only the DNA system survived. All it took was one. And to Falsify Evolution, all you need to do is find a single life form that doesn't use the DNA/RNA system. Viruses are not called life in some circles, but I call them life. And they use the system, because, like Bill Gates, it has backdoors. Edited by xongsmith, : falsification test Edited by xongsmith, : more emphasis on the EVIDENCE line "I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
xongsmith writes: So you're kind of arguing that just because rocks on a beach gradually all get rounded doesn't mean they all came from one ancient rock? My guess is that there's some strange area in some believer's minds that thinks "evolution is real, it must be accounted for... but God is real too and also must be accounted for... therefore... maybe God started evolution! Yeah! If that's true, then science can't know about a natural way for evolution to start!" Which is, really, ridiculous.I mean - if you're already acknowledging that science-discovered evolution is a real thing and just a tool of God's... then what's wrong with abiogenesis and UCD also being science-discovered real things and just tool's of God's... But... if a believer is going to go down that road, I see how Dredge's line of reasoning makes sense in those terms.-if someone doesn't really know a lot about evolution and biology -couple that with someone who doesn't want UCD to be a real thing Result: you get someone using a bunch of big biology words in sentences that don't make sense. Which is what I'm having a ton of fun doing: taking silly statements about evolution and biology and exposing just how silly they are to everyone by showing a similar analogy that everyone understands. Like this:
Dredge writes: Tell me, how many scientists had to believe in Universal Common Descent in order for those genetic similarities to exist? It's a really ignorant, silly question.Equivalent to: "Tell me, how many customers had to believe in nuts and bolts in order for vehicles to be manufactured?" None.The silly answer to the silly question is an incredibly obvious, and incredibly irrelevant "none" And the point is that nuts and bolts are still irrevocably important to the manufacture of vehicles. Understanding this importance leads to greater vehicle technology.And the point is that UCD is still irrevocably important to those genetic similarities existing. Understanding this importance leads to greater biological/medicinal technology.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024