Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9049 total)
488 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Pollux (4 members, 484 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,590 Year: 5,236/14,102 Month: 157/677 Week: 16/26 Day: 4/12 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 104 of 1385 (849430)
03-09-2019 7:20 PM

Don't creationists have a universal common ancestor too?
The sames creationists say there was divergence and "evolution".

The same creationists accept DNA as real.

Genetic understanding is relevant to deciding which people are more likely to suffer from whatever type of disease.

Genetic understanding is also relevant to getting the best treatment.

Now, the question:

The question is whether "macro" evolutionary understanding of DNA comparisons can help clue a scientist in on fruitful areas of disease research, and in a way that creationists might be inclined to avoid.

Look at the issue of using animal research to help find cures to human diseases.

(When it comes to animal research, we can rule out the idea of most creationists having any ethical concerns, so I will lay that issue aside)

Whales get HIV, I believe. Rats and Chimps have some useful "disease research" functions.

Does the macro-evolutionary understanding cause more and better research to necessarily happen?

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:52 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 152 by Dredge, posted 03-17-2019 1:50 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 105 of 1385 (849431)
03-09-2019 7:45 PM

I am not sure what the argument would be from a creationist.
I put this into google:

disease research mice dna humans

(computer won't let me type words above "I put this into google" or hit "Enter" to drop the line to a lower horizon in message)

(I was going to start this message by asking for the creationist understanding of cross-specie applied research relative to diseases)


Importance of Mouse Genome - National Human Genome Research ...
Overall, mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes. ... mimic in mice the effect of DNA alterations that occur in human diseases and carefully study ...

People also ask
How closely related are mice and humans?

What percentage of DNA do humans share with mice?

Why are mice a good model for studying human genes?

What percentage of DNA do humans share with fruit flies?

Mouse Genetics - The mouse as a model for human disease.
The laboratory mouse is a powerful tool that scientists use to model human diseases and conditions in the search for better treatments and cures for ...

Why mice are the best candidates for research | Inside Science
Video for disease research mice dna humansâ–¶ 2:59
Oct 30, 2017 - Uploaded by Inside Science
... a huge impact on science research. Mice make excellent models for human disease because parts of ...

New comprehensive view of the mouse genome finds many ... - NIH
Nov 19, 2014 - Mouse next to an illustration of DNA. ... This allows us to study human disease by studying those aspects of mouse biology that reflect human ...

Comparing the Mouse and Human Genomes | National Institutes of ...
Dec 8, 2014 - Specific DNA sequence differences linked to diseases in humans often ... importance of using mouse models to study certain human diseases.

Why use the mouse in research? | Facts | yourgenome.org
Mar 3, 2017 - Now scientists use mice to simulate human genetic disorders? in order to study their development and test new therapies. As a scientific tool, ...

Of mice and men Story The mouse is closely related to humans with a ...
Mar 3, 2017 - The sequence of the mouse genome? was published in 2002. ... As a result, researchers have been able to develop thousands of mouse strains with mutations? that mirror those seen in human genetic disease? ... In one method the foreign DNA is introduced directly via a fine needle into mouse eggs that ...

The Use of Animal Models in Studying Genetic Disease | Learn ...
Today, scientists are creating models of human genetic disease using mice, flies, ... Also, animal models are often preferable for experimental disease research ... or by using a retroviral vector to insert the transgene into an organism's DNA.

Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences | Education - Seattle PI
https://education.seattlepi.com › K-12

This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently ...

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 03-10-2019 10:49 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 107 of 1385 (849461)
03-10-2019 8:55 PM

I was asking for the (ex post facto) Creationism Theory for the research.
I think it is obvious that the UCA "macro-evolutionary" theory can easily offer the mice disease research as powerful (?) support for the theory.

I want the creationist argument.

I fully expect some lame, "God was efficient, so he made us mammals with similar DNA", type of response.

(And I expected this disease research issue to have already been brought up. I suspect it was not brought up because almost everybody gave up - from the start - on the hope for an actual argument from creationists.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dredge, posted 03-13-2019 12:05 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 1284 of 1385 (857131)
07-05-2019 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1280 by Dredge
07-04-2019 11:15 PM

"Darwinian" means what?

I asked for an example of how the Darwinian explanation of the history of life has proven practically useful in applied science.


Survival of the fittest?

Genetic isolation? (the "genetic" part might be neo-Darwinian)

Or the common ancestry part?

You next line:


For example, if you can think of any practical use of medical science that requires the “information” that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that would be a start.

Humans of common ancestry share common diseases.

Ancestry tells us a lot about who gets what disease.

I was trying to find some information (via google) about certain people of India sharing a genetic-predisposition toward certain diseases with Europeans .

This might not be the best link, but here is something:


India's genes uncovered

Adam Rutherford

Genetic exploration of the subcontinent has been slow to get going – but the latest findings offer some amazing insights

Nowhere is the bewildering diversity of the people of India more apparent than on the Rupee: the value of each banknote is spelt out in 17 languages.

Tracing the origins of this type of diversity has only recently been opened up past the historical. Nowadays, genome analysis has emerged to complement history in understanding our origins: by looking at the individual differences in the genetic code in individuals, we can identify how closely populations and families are related, and infer the migration and mating that brought us into the modern age. Strangely, genetic analysis of the billion strong population of the subcontinent has been slow to kick off. But a new study has revealed that despite the population of India being incredibly diverse, it is in fact derived from just two distinct ancient populations. One of these, from the north, were distant cousins of Europeans and Middle Easterners, whereas those from the south were as different from the northerners as they were from the Chinese.

These distinctions are not visible now, but this ancestry is buried deep in the Indian genome. Almost all sampled showed a blend of these two ancestral groups, but in differing proportions.


In a population where there's a range of hair colour, for example, ginger genes might eventually blend in and be lost through breeding with non-redheads. But if a ginger family became isolated (literally or for social reasons) from the rest of the population and could therefore only breed within, then that whole population would be predominantly ginger. In evolutionary terms we call this a "founder event". And it appears that India's genetic spread is a result of many founder events at times during the last 3000 years: small pockets of populations that were endogamous: that is, they didn't breed much beyond their group. I don't expect many of them were ginger though.

There are a number of interesting implications for this. The first is that the consequence of endogamy revealed by this genetic map of a billion people is that we should expect to see a higher frequency of recessive genetic diseases, in the same way that we observe in Ashkenazi Jews or the Finns. Indian scientists are aware of disorders within their populations that rely on a unique genetic heritage, and have attributed it to marriage to close relatives, which is relatively common in the south. But the roots of these diseases may be deeper than cousins marrying.

There's a second socio-political inference. The caste system has existed in India for centuries, and although great efforts have been made to reduce its divisive nature (caste-based discrimination is outlawed under the constitution), it remains active and controversial. It has been suggested that caste was to some degree an invention of (or at least galvanised by) the British during colonialism. What the genetics now says is that this endogamy within castes has kept social groups relatively separate for thousands of years, and hence defined India's population in genetic terms. Reich commented that "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes." On top of this, this and other studies have shown a higher proportion of high caste members share genetic traits with those from the northern ancestral group. This may yet prove to be controversial if it can be spun to defend a rigid caste structure.


This was about human groups.

But what about animals thrown into the mix of actual "human ancestors"?

There does seem to be a link between macro-evolutionary events and diseases.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1280 by Dredge, posted 07-04-2019 11:15 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1298 by Dredge, posted 07-10-2019 1:25 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 1285 of 1385 (857132)
07-05-2019 10:19 PM

I might have found a site to help in this discussion


Spreading disease on evolutionary timescales
November 2010

If you are trying to stay healthy this cold and flu season, you may find yourself washing your hands frequently and avoiding crowded places like schools and airports. That's because most infectious diseases that we are familiar with are passed from human to human — and the more human germs you come into contact with, the more likely you are to have one make its home in your body. However, on evolutionary timescales, pathogens don't necessarily respect species boundaries. Biologists have discovered more and more cases in which diseases have passed from another species to humans. And, as you might expect, the more closely related the other species are to us, the easier it seems to be for the pathogen to make this jump. The most recently discovered case of disease swapping among species involves the deadliest strain of malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, which causes more than a million deaths each year.
Where's the evolution?

Up until two years ago, biologists thought that this parasite had been plaguing us since the dawn of human history. P. falciparum's closest known relative was a species of malaria that infects chimpanzees, so it only made sense to hypothesize that the common ancestor of these parasitic species infected the common ancestor of humans and chimps. When our own lineage split from that of the chimps around six million years ago, each took a population of malaria parasites with them and these parasites evolved into separate species along with their hosts ... or at least that's what scientists thought, up until genetic testing uncovered previously unknown strains of malaria infecting other great apes.

Plasmodium falciparum (human malaria) and Plasmodium reichenowi (chimp malaria) are shown - on the site - on a branching family tree graphic, with a split in the human-chimp lineage causing a malaria split.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1299 by Dredge, posted 07-10-2019 1:27 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 1287 of 1385 (857135)
07-05-2019 10:53 PM

Is this study to your point (few useful "success" stories?) Dredge?



Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human
Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences

Jarrod Bailey

New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), Boston, USA and British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection (BUAV), London, UK

Summary — Assertions that the use of chimpanzees to investigate human diseases is valid scientifically are
frequently based on a reported 98–99% genetic similarity between the species. Critical analyses of the relevance of chimpanzee studies to human biology, however, indicate that this genetic similarity does not
result in sufficient physiological similarity for the chimpanzee to constitute a good model for research, and
furthermore, that chimpanzee data do not translate well to progress in clinical practice for humans.
Leading examples include the minimal citations of chimpanzee research that is relevant to human medicine, the highly different pathology of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C virus infection in the two species, the lack
of correlation in the efficacy of vaccines and treatments between chimpanzees and humans, and the fact
that chimpanzees are not useful for research on human cancer. The major molecular differences underlying these inter-species phenotypic disparities have been revealed by comparative genomics and molecular
biology — there are key differences in all aspects of gene expression and protein function, from chromosome and chromatin structure to post-translational modification. The collective effects of these differences are striking, extensive and widespread, and they show that the superficial similarity between human and chimpanzee genetic sequences is of little consequence for biomedical research. The extrapolation of biomedical data from the chimpanzee to the human is therefore highly unreliable, and the use of the chimpanzee must be considered of little value, particularly given the breadth and potential of alternative methods of enquiry that are currently available to science.

I suppose you feel that all research would happen regardless of understanding of the past.

So even successful research won't mean a whole lot, to you, correct?

Replies to this message:
 Message 1293 by Dredge, posted 07-08-2019 1:59 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 1291 of 1385 (857315)
07-07-2019 3:35 PM

Can we get the OP to engage the posters?
There has not been much clarity.

I have no idea if anything can possibly meet (what the standard is) his/her standards.

I was attempting to figure out if any research on human diseases (based on animal studies on animals with a relatively "close" macro-evolutionary relationship) counts as evidence, since a claim can be made that "research can happen regardless of evolutionary views".

I got very - quick, facile - dismissive answers from the thread originator.

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 1328 of 1385 (858548)
07-21-2019 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1322 by Louis Morelli
07-19-2019 1:36 AM

Re: Name one.

Now, if you are a theoretical deist, you will say Matrix/DNA is wrong, if you are a theoretical atheist you will say it is wrong. I think that rationally, any believe that separates Universal Evolution into two blocks (cosmological and Biological evolution) without a rational evolutionary link between them is magical thought, so, deism and atheism. I am here advocating a third world view, an agnostic one. I think it is my right to do it also.

Creationism assumes that things can start fully formed in their most advanced state.

The planets are there right from the start.

Man is there right from the start.


"God did it".

Where is there a "problem" to the creationism model?

The creationist will see no problem (seeing what one wants, that is)

But, God is even more of a problem, because God is the most advanced being possible.

At least the standard (Big Bang)cosmological model takes into account nuclear physics, which will be replicated in the lab in a PREDICTABLE way.

What about biology?

Nuclear physics will be used to date the rocks and put all the LIVING things (that is fossils) in the order of their respective appearance.

You can then deduce biological evolution as the best theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by Louis Morelli, posted 07-19-2019 1:36 AM Louis Morelli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1329 by Louis Morelli, posted 07-21-2019 9:50 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Posts: 1959
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2

Message 1330 of 1385 (858564)
07-21-2019 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1329 by Louis Morelli
07-21-2019 9:50 PM

Re: Name one.

Thanks by debating this... two heads thinks better than one... Reading your post I concluded that you have preferred the materialist worldview and not the creationist. I told that I prefer a third world view, still unknown by you. So, let's go:

I don't doubt that we got to where we are.

I agree with creationists that man him-/her-/it-self exists.


You say: " Creationism assumes that things can start fully formed in their most advanced state."

Yes, I can't agree with magical creationism, because I never saw anything like that. But... in Nature we can see a real fact where one thing starts predetermined to be a complex thing in its advanced state. I am referring to embryogenesis. There is a second stage, the birth, when the thing starts in its advanced state. So, the creationist theory has a foundation in reality about the phenomena, but it is completely wrong about the process. It is a natural process, there is no magics.

Scientists have not been able to create life in the lab.

There has been success with amino acid creation.

But not a full protein ("incomplete or complete).

And then one would need to be able to replicate itself in order to to really satisfy creationists.

One has to wonder if a creationist will then say that "anything created in the lab can ONLY be proof for Creationism".

"It happened so quickly, so THAT is "creation"!"


Now, if you pay attention in the first moment that this thing starts, it is called "fecundation". Here, a genome as spermatozoon has its membrane "exploded", at the center of an ovule. This is the first moment of a new human body.
Now we have the question: how and from where Nature got this idea to do this thing in this way? Nature is not magical, it can not create new information beyond those it received at its beginning. There are informations produced by fuzzy logics, but this is another history, that happens in running processes.
Then, we see the scene of the spermatozoon and it remembers the... "big bang"! It makes sense: Nature creates things by the same process it has started, or created.

After reading this:

Now I really think a 13 billion year old universe will be used to support creationism.

Will YECs even see that as proof?


Physics and Mat can not grasp the effects from biological organization of matter when analysing an event. Physics and Mat works with the structure, the bone skeleton of a human body, but it can do nothing in relation to the meat, the brain, the biological organization, the forces that comes from the system, as a biological system...

So, I think this question is very rational: " If Nature repeats a process when creating new things, and if the scene of "big bang" is the same at origins of Universe and origins of life, and if we are trying to understand the Big Bang of the Universe using only Physics and Mat, not Biology, who can say that the big bang of the Universe has not obeyed effects from a prior biological organization of matter?

I am not so sure that biology in a previous universe is part of this theory-type, but the IDEA of previous universes collapsing into what became the START (Big Bang) of our Universe were very prominent until the Dark Energy discovery 20 some years ago.


Cyclic model - Wikipedia
Conformal cyclic cosmology—a general relativity based theory due to Roger Penrose in which the universe expands until all the matter decays and is turned to light—so there is nothing in the universe that has any time or distance scale associated with it.
‎Overview · ‎The Baum–Frampton model · ‎Other cyclic models

New evidence for cyclic universe claimed by Roger Penrose and ...
Aug 21, 2018 - So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage ...

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang – Physics ...
Nov 19, 2010 - Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang. ... That is the sensational claim being made by University of Oxford theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who says that data collected by NASA's WMAP satellite support his idea of “conformal cyclic cosmology”.

These Swirls of Light Could Be Signs of a Previous Universe Existing ...
Aug 16, 2018 - If our Universe happened to be locked in an eternal heartbeat of ... Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has a reputation on par with ... Oscillating universes come in a few different forms, depending on your choice of model.

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe by Roger ...
Oct 15, 2010 - Manjit Kumar examines Roger Penrose's theory of the big bang.

The Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Of Roger Penrose — Guest Post by
Apr 30, 2016 - At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds ...

Roger Penrose | American Institute of Physics
See additional images of Roger Penrose. ...... One might then have believed in a previously collapsing phase, such as in an oscillating universe model. But the ...
Possible confirmation of Mills' 'Oscillating Universe' and GUT-CP ...
Sep 11, 2018 - “I actually emailed Roger Penrose with this last year.” “Did you get a response?” “No… but then he is 'Sir' Roger Penrose, and what we know of ...

The Conformal Cyclic Cosmology of Roger Penrose - Rational Catholic
Apr 24, 2016 - ... such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a ... Chris Isham, "Creation of the Universe as Quantum Process"in Physics, ... Roger Penrose, "Before the Big Bang, an Outrageous Perspective.".

How Physics Lost Its Fizz - Scientific American Blog Network
Jan 18, 2016 - According to the oscillating-universe hypothesis, this cycle of cosmic ... Steinhardt and Neil Turok and in Cycles of Time by Roger Penrose.



Can you answer that? But... this solution is more rational than any other. Now, I will tell you that I tried to apply the known effects of biological systems upon the big picture of Big Bang as described by Physics and Mat. The final results did not change anything in relation to the scientific postulates used by Big Bang Theory, but changed a lot the way we interpret that event. It is so drastic the new interpretation that it builds a new never thought world view.

I am waiting that someone else do the same exercise, I need to see their results, maybe I have made some mistakes. This new world view is suggesting that materialism and creationism has 50% of errors and 50% corrections... like this issue.

I don't think I am the one to help, and it isn't your fault.


You: At least the standard (Big Bang)cosmological model takes into account nuclear physics, which will be replicated in the lab in a PREDICTABLE way."

As I said above, my opinion is that in this world that produced biological organization of matter and life can not be described only by Physics and Mat. Because this Universe is not magical for creating Biology and life from nothing and having no information for doing it. And Biology must be there since the first moment of this universe and beyond that. And if I am right, no, the right Big Bang will not be repicable with the knowledge offered by Physics and Mat alone. But... everything are our theories, give time to time...

Is it "intelligence" that biology alone presents, which you are concerned with?

Intelligent "design" is the issue, or (another issue) is your concern just about a previous universe already coded in a way that will create a type of determinism which brings biology in the recurring (our current 13 billion year old) universe?

Aside from a previous universe becoming our current universe, perhaps the possibility of other dimensions (4th dimension possibility and I am not saying "time is the forth dimension" but I mean a real 4th dimension) might help answer some questions (but pose more). Can intelligence (however "evolved" from some process pre-Big Bang) in another dimension explain some things that happen with biology?

A tubular hose looks like a flat line from a distance, but it is actually a wrap around. Perhaps our flat looking reality is wrapped around a not-seen 4th dimension. Like a mile long strip of land appearing flat to us, but really more of a tubular wrap around in reality. A 4th dimension is right there (somewhere "near") but we cannot ever get to it.

Like the 2 dimensional "flat-landers" cannot get to us 3-D entities. As a flat/2-D human on a television/computer screen cannot interact with us.

Those in the advanced dimension can (somehow)guide the lower dimensional things.

But it all evolved somewhere.

Is this just plain old I.D.?


And it is just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1329 by Louis Morelli, posted 07-21-2019 9:50 PM Louis Morelli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1331 by Louis Morelli, posted 07-22-2019 4:16 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021