Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 9:24 AM
31 online now:
caffeine, dwise1, edge, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric (7 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,854 Year: 11,890/19,786 Month: 1,671/2,641 Week: 180/708 Day: 7/40 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
83848586
87
88Next
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1291 of 1313 (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.


    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1292 of 1313 (857353)
07-08-2019 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1282 by Tangle
07-05-2019 6:43 AM


Tangle writes:

AIDS vaccine development using monkeys - our closest genetic relative.


Sorry, but your argument fails. What is actually useful in this case is the FACT that human and monkey DNA are similar. Any EXPLANATION for why they are similar (ie, common descent) is irrelevant. In other words, the useful fact is not dependent on the explanation, which is actually useless. You are conflating a useful fact and a useless theory that attempts to explain that fact.

Are you saying a creationist Muslim biologist, for example, couldn’t make use of these genetic similarities and use primates to test drugs on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1282 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2019 6:43 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1294 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2019 9:14 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1293 of 1313 (857354)
07-08-2019 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1287 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2019 10:53 PM


Re: Is this study to your point (few useful "success" stories?) Dredge?
LamarkNewAge writes:

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

Thanks for this excellent post - it fails to demonstrate any practical use for the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, but it does demonstrate that the much-vaunted genetic similarities between humans and chimps are “superficial” and that the genetic “differences are striking, extensive and widespread.” Not a great advertisement for “common descent” is it?

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?

I’m not aware of any “successful research” has produced a practical use for “an understanding of the (evolutionary distant) past”.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1287 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:53 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1294 of 1313 (857380)
07-08-2019 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1292 by Dredge
07-08-2019 1:50 AM


Dredge writes:

Sorry, but your argument fails. What is actually useful in this case is the FACT that human and monkey DNA are similar. Any EXPLANATION for why they are similar (ie, common descent) is irrelevant. In other words, the useful fact is not dependent on the explanation, which is actually useless. You are conflating a useful fact and a useless theory that attempts to explain that fact.

Well, that's just more denial, twisting and wriggling, but I was answering the question you asked which was

Dredge writes:

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.

And the answer was inoculation testing using monkeys which is possible because we share a close common ancestor.

Are you saying a creationist Muslim biologist, for example, couldn’t make use of these genetic similarities and use primates to test drugs on?

No. But without the knowledge we have of common descent he'd have to try every living organism to find something that worked.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by Dredge, posted 07-08-2019 1:50 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1296 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2019 5:02 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 1302 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:32 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1295 of 1313 (857544)
07-09-2019 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1286 by Dredge
07-05-2019 10:45 PM


dredge writes:

You don't understand the Darwinian theories of common descent and descent with modification?
If not, try neo-Darwinian theory.

Does your idea of it involve neutral theory?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1286 by Dredge, posted 07-05-2019 10:45 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3550
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1296 of 1313 (857627)
07-09-2019 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by Tangle
07-08-2019 9:14 AM


Dredge writes:

Are you saying a creationist Muslim biologist, for example, couldn’t make use of these genetic similarities and use primates to test drugs on?


No. But without the knowledge we have of common descent he'd have to try every living organism to find something that worked.

This leads us to an important point that I don't think has been addressed yet. As I pointed out in an old topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) (2007-Nov-27 to 2011-Jun-06, 396 messages), in which my OP concluded started with:

quote:
Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.

A very important thing in engineering (which is what Dredge is fixated on; ie, his "applied science", though I feel that it's more of an ID invention to generate more confusion) as well as in science (which too many engineers do no like; we could have a nice long talk about this one over some fava beans and a nice Chianti) is to have an understanding of how things work in general in order to be able to ask meaningful questions that will inspire new solutions and discoveries. Those would be questions like, "Huh, I wonder why that happened?" or "I wonder if that will make this work?" or the infamous last thing said before the total destruction of the universe "I wonder what will happen if I do this."

Without that understanding of how things work, of what to expect, you won't be able to recognize when something unexpected happens and so will miss out on new discoveries. That even applies when dealing with known phenomena, where you need to know how the device is supposed to work so that you can notice the ways in which it's not working correctly as well as to understand how the components of the device work in order to realize how that could be causing the problem.

One example was an electronic device that worked when the case was closed, but then the output had a lot of noise on the output signal when the case was open. Any energy entering a semiconductor will increase current. Knowing that, the engineer also noticed that the power supply's rectifier diodes were encased in glass, so when you opened the case then the room's ambient light would hit the semiconductors and induce noise. The solution was to replace those diodes with ones encased in an opaque material. Without that knowledge of how semiconductors work, the engineer would probably still be trying to fix the problem or have gotten fired for incompetence (given how long ago our EE or tech school class was told about that, a third outcome would have been that that engineer finally retired after a lifelong career of trying to fix that problem).

Another example is what happened with one of our products a few jobs back. We had monitoring equipment that communicated with a base station via radio. They kept having interference problems, such that the entire box would just go *****, but as soon as we opened the box the problem would go away so we couldn't troubleshoot it. Finally our EE, knowing how RF and electronics work, realized that the antenna connector had to be leaking RF energy back into the box where it would bounce around injecting RFI in all the circuits. That fixed the problem, but it took knowledge of how things work.

The same idea applied in my first programming class, FORTRAN, after I switched from foreign languages to computer science. I had an understanding of how languages work and how to learn and use them, so I applied that knowledge to programming languages. When my program didn't work as expected, I would read it for content to see what I was actually telling the computer to do (which is not always what you want it to do) and then make corrections so that I was telling the computer to actually do what I wanted it to do. Most of the other students would panic and try random changes which would almost never fix the problem.

That is similar to Dredge's example of a "creationist Muslim biologist". Without the realization and understanding of why he should expect those genetic similarities and where, he would either not realize to look for them nor where. Worse yet, being a creationist he would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist.

First, Dredge's inclusion of the biologist's religion was completely irrelevant and contributes absolutely nothing. Neither the natural universe nor science (the study of the natural universe) could care less which stinkin' god you believe in -- they're going to function exactly the same regardless of your beliefs. You're going to get the same results whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Pastafarian, or atheist. That is just one reason what "goddidit" is so utterly useless: including a god adds absolutely nothing and leaving the gods out detracts absolutely nothing. The same as the next time you microwave a frozen dinner; you're going to get the exact same meal regardless of any stinkin' gods you might be inclined to include or to leave out.

But, including that he's also a creationist (yes, Virginia, there are Islamic creationists) is important. As a creationist, he would not only not accept the idea of common descent, but he would also be motivated to deny it. That denial could even be to the point of denying that such patterns of genetic differences even exist, or just merely that it's too uninteresting and deserves no further study. We saw precisely that behavior in Faith within the past month when she was confronted with the patterns of genetic differences that match the independent phylogenetic trees near perfectly. As I recall, at first she tried to deny that those patterns even exist and then shifted to a position of "so what?" and arbitrarily dismissed them as unimportant and uninteresting and unworthy of any study.

That's the other two deleterious effects of "goddidit". On the one hand, it misleads you into thinking that you have found an answer to the question or else that any question exists, so you stop investigating. On the other hand, there develops the dangerous attitude that by continuing to investigate you are denying God and even acting in direct opposition to Her. The wages of heresy can be extremely unpleasant *.

And, of course, at the end of the day, a creationist biologist responsible for coming up with an effective test would be stuck with being unable to approach the problem except in the manner that you describe: trial and effect, making random choices and changes in the vague hope of something falling into place ex nihilo. Like my fellow FORTRAN students.

And in case the point has been lost (especially on the self-professed nearly brain dead troll), the value and practical use for common ancestors is because by understanding how the real world works we can ask useful questions and arrive at useful solutions. Without that knowledge, we would just be stumbling in the dark.

-----------------------------------------------

* Paula Poundstone (from memory):
"Yes, it is true that the wages of sin are death. But after all the withholding for taxes and the like, all you're left with is feeling very tired."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2019 9:14 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1303 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:40 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1297 of 1313 (857649)
07-10-2019 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1283 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2019 9:54 AM


Sarah Bellum writes:

Perhaps the fact that we study primates to learn about living creatures, anatomy, the immune system and so forth requires the knowledge of the genetic link?


Or perhaps not. On another site, I once had a senior genetics researcher (from the Broad Institute) try and tell that the alleged fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor had proven practically useful in his research (into improving vaccines). But when I pressed him to explain how, it turns out that what he meant was, common ancestry worked in theory; he then admitted that that theory had not provided any practical use or benefit.

After all, if we not related we must treat the data from primate studies differently than we do

Any data from primate studies that has proven practically useful will remain practically useful whether or not scientists believe humans and primates share a common ancestor. And I suspect that much of what you refer to as “data” is not actually real data, but evolutionary theory that is assumed to be factual and thus accepted as “data”.

In any case, it's all part of a whole, so trying to work with only some of the science while dismissing fundamental principles would lead to the same sort of problems

That’s your assumption, which unfortunately has no basis in fact. I come across this false assumption all the time with evolutionists, especially the trained biologist types. They are brainwashed to believe Dobzhansky’s Delusion that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, but it doesn’t occur to them that there is not a solitary practical use in all of applied science for the Darwinian version of the history of life on earth.

would lead to the same sort of problems as, for example, trying to use modern chemistry while still holding in your mind the idea that there are only four elements.

That’s a nonsense analogy, which is a product of the false assumption I mentioned above.
A chemist, for example, needs to have knowledge of, not four, but all the elements in order to be a competent chemist. What does a dentist, for example, need to know about the alleged evolution of teeth or humans in order to be a competent dentist? Nothing at all. What does a doctor, for example, need to know about the alleged evolution of humans in order to be a competent doctor? Nothing at all. What does a biologist, for example, need to know about the alleged evolution of life on earth in order to be a competent biologist? Nothing at all.

As far as applied science is concerned, the Darwin version of the history of life on earth is completely useless information and amounts to nothing more than an historical curiosity.

It's still knowledge, even so.

Another false assumption, based on your atheistic belief and the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The Darwinian explanation for the history of life is not “knowledge” - it is a theory that cannot ever be put to the test (despite what atheists what us to believe). Knowledge is facts; it is not untestable beliefs, as beliefs can be wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 9:54 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1300 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 11:38 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1298 of 1313 (857650)
07-10-2019 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1284 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2019 10:07 PM


Re: "Darwinian" means what?
LamarkNewAge writes:

"Darwinian"?
Survival of the fittest?
Genetic isolation? (the "genetic" part might be neo-Darwinian)
Or the common ancestry part?


The neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life amounts to (a) observed phenomena that cause variations within populations (ie, facts of microevolution that have proven practically useful) with (b) common descent (ie, unobservable speculation that is practically useless) throw in. So I’m talking about (b) common descent.


There is nothing about the knowledge of inherited diseases in humans that even remotely depends on the "information" that humans and chimps share a common ancestor or the Darwinian version of the history of life on earth.

Humans of common ancestry share common diseases.
Ancestry tells us a lot about who gets what disease.

The "information" that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, on the other hand, is completely useless and tells us absolutely nothing about who gets what disease.

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

Like what? Name just one of these "macro-evolutionary events" that has provided a practical use in fighting disease.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:07 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1299 of 1313 (857651)
07-10-2019 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1285 by LamarkNewAge
07-05-2019 10:19 PM


Re: I might have found a site to help in this discussion
LarmarkNewAge writes:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/...ibrary/news/101101_malaria


All you’ve given me here is some useless evolutionary talk about what might have happened “six million years ago”. How does such speculation amount to a practical use?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1285 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2019 10:19 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 11:39 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1306 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:49 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1300 of 1313 (857680)
07-10-2019 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Dredge
07-10-2019 1:13 AM


Most likely, a dentist doesn't refer to Darwin's work in between taking X-rays and pulling wisdom teeth, though the idea of evolution might be interesting to a dentist wondering why more people are born with fewer wisdom teeth now than in the past.

But then, a dentist's work isn't dealing with patterns of disease mutation, relative virulence of parasites, handling drug or pesticide resistance, selective breeding ("artificial" selection finds knowledge of "natural" selection useful!), evaluation of possible hazards from genetically modified crops, preservation of endangered species, understanding of gene function (if you know the pattern of descent it helps in learning about genes with still-unknown function), development of biological strains to decompose hazardous materials, genetic algorithms or similar areas of science and technology.

Your discussion of chemistry doesn't make any sense. Yes, a chemist could work with the Periodic Table and at the same time try to imagine that those symbols didn't really represent "elements" but merely compounds with various properties. Mercury, for instance, the chemist (alchemist?) might think of as a combination of water and fire, with a little earth in it to give it weight. But a chemist thinking that way would be no different from people working on the tasks described in the previous paragraph trying to hold in their minds the notion that living organisms didn't really evolve.

As for "atheistic beliefs", remember that plenty of religious believers have no problem with the history of life on Earth being one of evolution (variation and natural selection).

To me, it seems more likely that those who believe in Creationism have their reason clouded by their religious beliefs than that those who study science have their reason clouded by their lack of religious beliefs. Especially since, as I mentioned, many don't lack such beliefs.

Finally, when you say, "The Darwinian explanation for the history of life is not 'knowledge' - it is a theory that cannot ever be put to the test" you say something untrue. For example, the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs can be put to the test. You may not be able to travel back in time to view the generational change, but you can find Archaeopteryx.

If you claim that knowledge about the past isn't knowledge, then you might have an uncomfortable time talking with, for example, archaeologists digging around Jerusalem or Jericho or the Dead Sea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by Dredge, posted 07-10-2019 1:13 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2019 2:59 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 1301 of 1313 (857681)
07-10-2019 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1299 by Dredge
07-10-2019 1:27 AM


Re: I might have found a site to help in this discussion
Would you at least be willing to concede that the following argument has no validity?

"Proposition X has no practical use so therefore Proposition X is false."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1299 by Dredge, posted 07-10-2019 1:27 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1302 of 1313 (857847)
07-12-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1294 by Tangle
07-08-2019 9:14 AM


Tangle writes:

Well, that's just more denial, twisting and wriggling


What??? Your mistake is one of simple logic - it’s not an EXPLANATION for the genetic similarities that makes them practically useful, but the genetic similarities themselves.

And the answer was inoculation testing using monkeys which is possible because we share a close common ancestor.

And your answer was wrong. It doesn’t matter WHY monkey and human DNA are similar; all that matters is that they ARE similar. The “WHY” (in this case, humans and monkey share a common ancestor) is completely irrelevant to utility. If everyone were YECs and believed the world was created 6000 years ago, the same genetics similarities between monkeys and humans would still exist, still be known and still be just as useful.

without the knowledge we have of common descent he'd have to try every living organism to find something that worked.

Evolutionary theory predicts that the most ideal creature to test human drugs on will be our alleged “closest evolutionary relative” - chimps. But as it turns out, chimps actually don’t make very good test animals … so much for evolutionary theory. Did evolutionary theory predict that mice would prove useful for testing? Probably not.

Furthermore, plain common sense would suggest that the best animal to test drugs on would most likely be an animal that is most like humans - ie, non-human primates. No evolutionary theory is needed to arrive at that conclusion; it’s a no-brainer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2019 9:14 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1305 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:45 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1303 of 1313 (857849)
07-12-2019 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1296 by dwise1
07-09-2019 5:02 PM


dwise1 writes:

Without the realization and understanding of why he should expect those genetic similarities and where, he would either not realize to look for them nor where.


Evolutionary theory predicts that the most ideal creature to test human drugs on will be our alleged “closest evolutionary relative” - chimps. But as it turns out, chimps actually don’t make very good test animals … so much for evolutionary theory. Did evolutionary theory predict that mice would prove useful for testing? Probably not.

"Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences" https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1027&context=acwp_lab

Furthermore, plain common sense would suggest that the best animal to test drugs on would most likely be an animal that is most like humans - ie, non-human primates. No evolutionary theory is needed to arrive at that conclusion; it’s a no-brainer.

Worse yet, being a creationist he would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist.

What baloney.

”being a creationist he would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist”

“ Neither the natural universe nor science (the study of the natural universe) could care less which stinkin' god you believe in -- they're going to function exactly the same regardless of your beliefs. You're going to get the same results whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Pastafarian, or atheist. ”


These two statements amount to a contradiction. If a Christian creationist “would be motivated to deny that those genetic similarities even exist”, then so would a Muslim or Jewish creationist and possibly creationists from other religions.

That is just one reason what "goddidit" is so utterly useless … That's the other two deleterious effects of "goddidit"...

Your rant has dribbled off-topic. The thread is not about the practical usefulness of “godditit”.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1296 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2019 5:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by edge, posted 07-12-2019 9:43 AM Dredge has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4636
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1304 of 1313 (857869)
07-12-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1303 by Dredge
07-12-2019 12:40 AM


Evolutionary theory predicts that the most ideal creature to test human drugs on will be our alleged “closest evolutionary relative” - chimps. But as it turns out, chimps actually don’t make very good test animals … so much for evolutionary theory. Did evolutionary theory predict that mice would prove useful for testing? Probably not.
"Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences" https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1027&context=acwp_lab


So, why do you insinuate the mice would be better than chimp-based research? The abstract to your linked article says nothing about mice.

I might also point out that the article was written by a member of the Anti-Vivisection Society. I don't suppose he would have an agenda, would you?

Furthermore, plain common sense would suggest that the best animal to test drugs on would most likely be an animal that is most like humans - ie, non-human primates. No evolutionary theory is needed to arrive at that conclusion; it’s a no-brainer.

But if one were making the argument for chimp-based research versus mouse-based research, the genetic similarity might be a useful tool and referencing the relatedness of humans to chimps to justify the additional costs would be a point of argument.

Besides, common sense is often recognized as not so common.

Your rant has dribbled off-topic. The thread is not about the practical usefulness of “godditit”.

I'm sure that dwise was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. I can see why you would want to avoid that point ...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:40 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1313 by Dredge, posted 07-17-2019 2:05 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4636
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1305 of 1313 (857870)
07-12-2019 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1302 by Dredge
07-12-2019 12:32 AM


What??? Your mistake is one of simple logic - it’s not an EXPLANATION for the genetic similarities that makes them practically useful, but the genetic similarities themselves.

As previously shown, you have no need for explanations nor do you have any, nor do you care. However, some people find explanations useful.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1302 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:32 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by Dredge, posted 07-17-2019 2:01 AM edge has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
83848586
87
88Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019