|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
None of your post has anything to do with what I'm talking about ... which is whether or not the theory of UCD has provided a practical use in medicine or biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=Stile]And the point is that UCD is still irrevocably important to those genetic similarities existing.]/qs]
If no one believed in UCD, would those genetic similarities still exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Stile writes:
If no one believed in UCD, would those genetic similarities still exist?
And the point is that UCD is still irrevocably important to those genetic similarities existing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge 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. False. It is because those genetic similarities are due to shared ancestry and evolution that the non-human species are used. Those processes will conserve functions, something that is not guaranteed in creationism.
Tell me, how many scientists had to believe in Universal Common Descent in order for those genetic similarities to exist? The genetic similarities exist. Period. It is because of the pattern of genetic similarities that scientists concluded life shares a common ancestor. That's what creationists just can't seem to understand. It isn't the genetic similarities. It is the PATTERN of similarities that points to shared ancestry and evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.
10? 20? 100? 1000? How many? Was there a critical mass? It was the critical mass of evidence that turned the tide. This is also something creationists like yourself just can't seem to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: If no one believed in UCD, would those genetic similarities still exist? 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: That quote is from 1882. That's how long the evidence has been around for shared ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
dredge says:
None of your post has anything to do with what I'm talking about ... which is whether or not the theory of UCD has provided a practical use in medicine or biology. i don't care about that, as it was answered abundantly many times. It was your 2nd question i was addressing.in fact i quoted that 2nd question in my post to clarify that. "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:
|
Dredge writes: If no one believed in UCD, would those genetic similarities still exist? "If no one believed in nuts and bolts, would those vehicles still stay together?" Of course.The silly answer to the silly question is an incredibly obvious, and incredibly irrelevant "of course." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
If no one believed in UCD, would those genetic similarities still exist?Stile writes:
Okay, so you agree that those genetic similarities exist without anyone accepting the theory of UCD. Of course. Since that is so, now explain why it's necessary for medical science to accept the theory of UCD in order to make use of those genetic similarities.
And the point is that UCD is still irrevocably important to those genetic similarities existing.
No, that is not the point. The point of the discussion is whether or not accepting the theory of UCD has provided a practical use in medicine or biology. Whether or not UCD provides an explanation for why those genetic similarities exist is not the point of the discussion. That is a different topic altogether.
Note: For the record, UCD does provide an explanation for why those genetic similarities exist, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Sludge writes: Note: For the record, UCD does provide an explanation for why those genetic similarities exist, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. Not to us. It is central to the argument. It will keep coming up, since you keep trying to deflect attention from it. We use it every day, we talk about it every day, we compare relatedness in labs around the world every day. You repeating the same erroneous claim over and over and stamping your feet doesn't change the fact that scientists will use the UCD until a better tool is introduced. You and your argument are completely irrelevant.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge 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.Taq writes:
Oh really? The following comments agree with me, but according to you, they're all false: False. "Researchers study rats and mice because they are very similar to people genetically" Why do we experiment on rats and mice for human research? | abc10.com "Humans and mice share many common genetic features and by examining the physiology, anatomy and metabolism of a mouse, scientists can gain a valuable insight into how humans function ... The mouse has many similarities to humans in terms of anatomy, physiology and genetics ... The mouse genome is very similar to our own, making mouse genetic research particularly useful for the study of human diseases ... Mice are extremely useful for studying complex diseases, such as atherosclerosis and hypertension, as many of the genes responsible for these diseases are shared between mice and humans."Why use the mouse in research? – YourGenome "Mice and humans share >90% of the same genes. Because the genetic content of all mammals is highly homologous, gene discovery in humans can often be predicted in mice and vice versa. "Of Mice, Dirty Mice, and Men: Using Mice To Understand Human Immunology | The Journal of Immunology "When animal models are employed in the study of human disease, they are frequently selected because of their similarity to humans in terms of genetics, anatomy, and physiology."The Use of Animal Models in Studying Genetic Disease | Learn Science at Scitable "Mice and rats have long served as the preferred species for biomedical research animal models due to their anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarity to humans."The Mighty Mouse: The Impact of Rodents on Advances in Biomedical Research - PMC "Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans"Why Do Medical Researchers Use Mice? | Live Science "According to The Jackson Laboratory, mice 'share between 95 and 98 percent of our genomes and get most of the same diseases, for many of the same genetic reasons.' They have been instrumental in the discovery of penicillin and in developing treatments for diseases such as polio, yellow fever, and HIV-AIDS." Why Are Mice Used in Testing for Human Diseases? "In addition to breeding strategies based on natural variations, researchers also have a number of genetic modification tools available. Since mice share approximately 80 per cent of their genes with humans, modifying mouse DNA is a powerful method for creating animal models of human disease."Why do scientists use mice? | Blood.ca "The mouse or M. musculus is often used as a preferred model organism due to the similarity with the human genome of 85% and genome size ... Mice are mammals closer to our genetic makeup ... As such, mice are useful for studies of more complex disorders such as ageing, neurodegenerative disorders, and modern diseases including, heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure and stress."
It is because those genetic similarities are due to shared ancestry and evolution that the non-human species are used. Those processes will conserve functions, something that is not guaranteed in creationism.
You're confused. An explanation for why those genetic similarities exist (UCD) is not what makes those similarities useful to medical science. Those genetic similarities stand alone - an explanation of their origins is not needed to make them medically useful. In effect, you're arguing that a modern hammer is useless unless it's accompanied by an explanation of how it evolved from stone tools. Bizarre.
The genetic similarities exist. Period.
Exactly. They exist regardless of any explanation for why they exist (eg, UCD). They would exist even in the total absence of an explanation for why they exist. Similarly, medical science makes practical use of those genetic similarities redardless any explanation for why they exist (eg, UCD). In other words, the theory of UCD is irrelevant to medical science.
It is because of the pattern of genetic similarities that scientists concluded life shares a common ancestor.
... none of which is relevant to the discussion, which is not at all concerned with evidence for the theory of UCD.That's what creationists just can't seem to understand. It isn't the genetic similarities. It is the PATTERN of similarities that points to shared ancestry and evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. The discussion is about whether or not the theory of UCD has provided a practical use in medical or biological science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Why are you talking about evidence for common ancestry? That's not what I'm arguing about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
941
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?Taq writes:
Nonsense. Those animal models are used simply because they share genetics similarities with humans. As I said earlier, these models are used because the animals used are thought to share common ancestry with humans. The fact that those genetics similarities are evidence of UCD is irrelevant to their utility in medical science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
Er, no ... my argument has nothing to do with rounded rocks ... or any sort of rocks, for that matter.
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?"
Have you been drinking?
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".
The "smoking bullet"? 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. Hilarious.
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.
What on earth are you talking about? 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 "Falsify Evolution"? Who's trying to falsify evolution? I don't think you're even in the right thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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?Taq writes:
Your Darwinist propaganda doesn't add up. According to Darwinist folklore, birds and fish, for example, "share common ancestry with humans", but birds and fish aren't used as models by medical science. Why not? As I said earlier, these models are used because the animals used are thought to share common ancestry with humans. Gee, might it have something to do with the fact that there are other animals more genetically, anatomically and physiologically similar to humans than birds and fish ... rats and mice, for example... in other words, the reason mice and rats are used as models instead of birds and fish has nothing to do with "common ancestry"? 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.
Do you even understand my argument? Who's "challenging common ancestry"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Okay, so you agree that those genetic similarities exist without anyone accepting the theory of UCD. Of course, just like gravity exists without anyone accepting the Theory of Gravity.Or just like vehicles exist without any customers accepting the existence of nuts and bolts. Since that is so, now explain why it's necessary for medical science to accept the theory of UCD in order to make use of those genetic similarities. It's not necessary.Medicinal science moved along (incredibly slow, and incredibly limited, and incredibly wrong) for hundreds of years without acknowledging UCD. -your barber would be your doctor -many drugs and vaccines were discovered by accident (like penicillin and the smallpox vaccine) -only a handful of vaccines existed Without UCD medical science would still exist.And it would still be moving incredibly slow. And we would be no where near the technology and understanding and progress we have today. In understanding UCD and how it pervades all of biology, medical science is able to harness this knowledge to develop more drugs and vaccines and technologies and progression takes off at an incredible pace. Such is the power of knowledge and application. Just like how nuts and bolts aren't necessary for vehicles.But they sure as hell make them easier to build. And understanding nuts and bolts will help the progression of vehicle technology grow at an incredible rate as compared to that without them. The point of the discussion is whether or not accepting the theory of UCD has provided a practical use in medicine or biology. And the answer is yes. Just as nuts and bolts have provided a practical use in vehicles.Are they necessary? Nope. Do they allow for incredible increases in technology and progress? Yup. Such is the way of UCD in medical science. And the point is that nuts and bolts are irrevocably important to the manufacture of vehicles. Understanding this importance leads to greater vehicle technology.And the point is that UCD is irrevocably important to those genetic similarities existing. Understanding this importance leads to greater biological/medicinal technology. Would you like to keep running around in this circle?You're going to burn a hole in the floor.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024