|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: More Darwinist delusion. Wake up, Dopey ... scientists didn't need the theory of UCD to determine how TRLs work in fruit flies, humans or any other mammal. Prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
You want me to prove a negative?
Prove it.Prove it.
Speaking of which ... In Message 1184 you made this claim:"These receptors were first discovered in fruit flies, and through common descent we were able to determine how they worked in humans and other mammals." (emphasis added) But you can't prove that it was "through common descent" that scientists determined how TLRs work. As usual, all you've done is make a bare assertion. You've repeatedly failed to support your delusion with facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: You want me to prove a negative? The fact of the matter is that they used UCD to discover the role of toll-like receptors in the human genome. You asked for examples. This is one of them.
But you can't prove that it was "through common descent" that scientists determined how TLRs work. It was because of UCD that they hypothesized toll proteins would have the same function in humans as it does in fruit flies.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
I like how he sets the pins up so you can knock 'em down. I believe that was a strike.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Theodoric writes:
I like how he sets the pins up so you (Taq) can knock 'em down. I believe that was a strike. Agree. I'm learning a lot in this thread."I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
An analogy for this thread:
Frank: Airplanes are useless as modes of transportation.Abe: That's not true. I flew in an airplane from Boston to Atlanta, and it worked great. Frank: That doesn't count since you could have driven in a car from Boston to Atlanta. Abe: But I didn't drive in a car. I flew in an airplane. Frank: Well, you didn't have to fly, so airplanes are still useless. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Xong writes: Theodoric writes:
I like how he sets the pins up so you (Taq) can knock 'em down. I believe that was a strike. Agree. I'm learning a lot in this thread. That's why I still like coming here, I learn new things and see well reasoned, articulate arguments, supported by evidence.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: |
Taq writes:
That is pure speculation ... no one can possibly know "how evolution has endowed different species with similar traits". Basing research models on pure speculation sounds like a very dumb idea to me.
Darwin’s description of “descent with modification” points to two aspects of evolution that can help us assess the matching between a prospective model species and its intended target ... Phylogenetic trees provide such context not only by highlighting phenotypic differences and similarities, but also by supporting inferences about the source of similarity. Understanding how evolution has endowed different species with similar traits is relevant both to the initial choice of model for studying a particular question, and then to the interpretation (and potential translation) of results. The two evolutionary routes to similarity are (1) shared ancestry, or homology, and (2) a history of common selection pressures, leading to convergence."
Selection of Models: Evolution and the Choice of Species for Translational Research - FullText - Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2019, Vol. 93, No. 2-3 - Karger Publishers
"Even though the distinction between homology-based and convergence-based models is not absolute, it offers a useful heuristic for thinking about how we select and employ them. Similarity due to homology and that due to convergence lead to different warrants for extrapolation, and disparate expectations for wider matching. In the case of similarity due to homology, we predict better overall representation of the model species’ closer phylogenetic relatives, a better warrant for expecting similarity in additional traits that share ancestry, and stronger inference to closer relatives. In contrast, similarities between model and target that are due to convergence generate different predictions. Here, we expect better representation of other species subject to similar selective pressures, and a stronger warrant for expecting similarity in additional traits with related adaptive functions – but no inferential premium for relatives
"we predict"? "we expect"? Is that all the author has to offer ... wishful thinking?
Selection of Models: Evolution and the Choice of Species for Translational Research - FullText - Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2019, Vol. 93, No. 2-3 - Karger Publishers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
So, let me get this straight. In place of the above you are offering stale crackers with 2000 year old jesus-meat, right?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If you're trying to compare religion to science, you're in the wrong thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
If you're trying to kill UCD and evolution then you are on the wrong planet.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
You sound like a baby who's fascinated by the mobile above his crib. That's fascinating. Mind you, his IQ is higher than yours.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: That is pure speculation ... no one can possibly know "how evolution has endowed different species with similar traits". "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."--Mark Twain Sorry, but refusing to accept reality is not a valid refutation. We can know, and we do know.
"we predict"? "we expect"? Is that all the author has to offer ... wishful thinking? It's called a hypothesis, otherwise known as "doing science". Now you are rejecting science as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Basing research models on pure speculation sounds like a very dumb idea to me. As you have shown us, accepting the preponderance of the evidence also sounds like a very dumb idea to you. Evidenced reality is a dumb idea to you. But an unevidenced talking snake and 2000 year old jesus meat are absolute TRVTH © TM SM ®. The very apex of your intellectual chain. And you want your church to make important life decisions for the rest of us? When your hell freezes over and we can all go skiing.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Do try and keep on topic. The discussion is not about an "hypothesis" or "doing science" ... it's about a practical use in medical science or biology for the theory of UCD. It's called a hypothesis, otherwise known as "doing science". An "hypothesis" per se is just an idea floating around in someone's mind, not a practical use. If the article you provided in Message 1109 describes a practical use in medical science or biology for the theory of UCD, what is it, exactly?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024