The light of evolution: What would be lost

[MikeEnders]

I was able to get my hands on the paper SFS presented as a practical application that would be lost if not for macro evolution and I must say even I am a bit surprised by the distortion made of this paper (although its slightly more credible now that SFS is associated with it and because of it is trying desperately to hype its importance).

Bottom line -

THERE IS ZILCH, NADA NOTHING

Of any practical application in the paper to treat Cholera. No specific (and note the word specific) genes are isolated, no treatment or vaccine is proposed in it or even expected to be proposed from it. Furthermore the lead scientists (theres like 20 that have had their names attached to it) on it relate that the further study that will be needed to actually get something practical is a LARGER STUDY OF INFECTED TO EXPOSED BUT NOT DISEASED HUMANS in order to actually isolate the specific genes that need to be isolated (this study did NOT do that). Precisely as I stated would be the case.

SFS so far therefore as I have said has failed to this point to present anything PRACTICAL that would be lost. Based on this paper alone and the knowledge deduced from it people would continue to die of cholera a the same rate as they did before it.

Its a nice fudge sundae to present it as something that answers my request but its a total bust.

 

[sfs]

The only way we're going to cure cholera is to understand it. One of the many parts of understanding the disease is understanding why some people get sick and die with it, while others don't. That may be an important clue that will lead to better treatment or prevention -- or it may not. The only way we're going to get to the end goal is to learn as much as possible. That's how biomedical research works: you have to learn lots and lots of biology before you can make any application, and the vast majority of the research doesn't have an immediate practical outcome. But you still have to do it to get to that outcome.

If you don't accept that such research is practical, you really should stop taking all drugs, stop using computers, stop using the phone and go and live in a cabin in the woods. Pretty much all of modern technology is build on this kind of "impractical" research.

 

[bhsmte]

I was able to get my hands on the paper SFS presented as a practical application that would be lost if not for macro evolution and I must say even I am a bit surprised by the distortion made of this paper (although its slightly more credible now that SFS is associated with it and because of it is trying desperately to hype its importance).

Bottom line -

THERE IS ZILCH, NADA NOTHING

Of any practical application in the paper to treat Cholera. No specific (and note the word specific) genes are isolated, no treatment or vaccine is proposed in it or even expected to be proposed from it. Furthermore the lead scientists (theres like 20 that have had their names attached to it) on it relate that the further study that will be needed to actually get something practical is a LARGER STUDY OF INFECTED TO EXPOSED BUT NOT DISEASED HUMANS in order to actually isolate the specific genes that need to be isolated (this study did NOT do that). Precisely as I stated would be the case.

SFS so far therefore as I have said has failed to this point to present anything PRACTICAL that would be lost. Based on this paper alone and the knowledge deduced from it people would continue to die of cholera a the same rate as they did before it.

Its a nice fudge sundae to present it as something that answers my request but its a total bust.

Having a bad day?

 

[lesliedellow]

If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic. There is NO scientific question which can not be answered with a simple logic. NO concept of evolution is needed.

You may start to explain to me any one of them.

Oh boy. Another ignorant creationist telling a working scientist (a biologist) his job.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh boy. Another ignorant creationist telling a working scientist (a biologist) his job.

Always entertaining.

 

[MikeEnders]

The only way we're going to cure cholera is to understand it. One of the many parts of understanding the disease is understanding why some people get sick and die with it, while others don't.

and the only way we will ever do that is by comparing modern humans who are exposed to it and who do not get the disease to people who do get it. That breakthrough will come from directly examining THEIR genome not their relationship to chimpanzees. This is how genetic disease research is being done by thousands of researchers around the world - Running comparative analysis against larger and larger databases in MODERN HUMANS. This is how we have isolated many genes related to disease so claiming that we would never be able to isolate genetic predispositions to cholera without macroevolution is utter nonsense. You fudged the claim.

If you don't accept that such research is practical, you really should stop taking all drugs, stop using computers, stop using the phone and go and live in a cabin in the woods.

False equivalence reasoning. We have all of that by testing what exists now in present form without any reference to historical relationships. Your claim was that you could show a practical applications that would be lost without macroevolution. You did no such thing and tried to pass off the paper as showing that when it never did.

Nice try but noooooo cigar. But hey.......have a great weekend.

 

[MikeEnders]

Oh boy. Another ignorant creationist telling a working scientist (a biologist) his job.

Just a logical heads up -. You have no idea who anyone is or what anyone does for a living on an anonymous forum

Having a bad day?

The opposite with a great weekend lined up. Thanks for asking.

 

[lesliedellow]

Just a logical heads up -. You have no idea who anyone is or what anyone does for a living on an anonymous foru

I know (for a fact) what SFS does for a living, and I have no need to guess.

 

[MikeEnders]

I know what SFS does for a living, and I have no need to guess.

On an anonymous forum where identities are not verified its just silly to try and make a point of it and call people ignorant that you don't even know. You know nothing about any creationist or poster on here that does not agree with you. Please persist to act like you do but it won't make your reasoning any more rational

 

[lesliedellow]

On an anonymous forum where identities are not verified its just silly to try and make a point of it. You know nothing about any creationist or poster on here that does not agree with you. Please persist to act like you do but it won't make your reasoning any more rational

What is silly is a creationist pretending that he knows more about biology than a biologist.

 

[juvenissun]

In fact, your criterion for choosing a comparison animal -- similarity that a child can see -- can go badly wrong. A child can see that the closest animal to this one

is something like this one:

Certainly a lot closer than something like this:

But if you follow that intuition, you'll be wrong. The whale is in fact a much better choice for a matching genome. That's because it's more closely related to the first animal, despite being very dissimilar. (Mind you, I've never actually compared these genomes. Consider this a prediction of evolution.)

However, it is true that, even not knowing any evolutionary biology, once you actually compared a bunch of genomes you'll discover that that chimpanzee genome is generally very similar to the human one. Does that tell you which variant is ancestral? Well, that depends. Where does most human genetic variation come from? In the creationist model, is it from differences among the chromosomes of Adam and Eve, or from subsequent mutation? It's impossible to say, since there is no creationist model of human genetics. I'm really not sure what to expect if evolution isn't true.

Nevertheless, it was just to be safe that I included my second application of common descent -- estimating the range over which mutation rates vary. Because that one makes no sense under a creationist model at all, whatever assumptions you make about where human variation comes from. I'm careful that way.

(First photo: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2nd: SunCoast Sugar Gliders. Both CC license.)

Interesting pictures and example. Thanks.
Paleontology leans heavily on taxonomy. And the taxonomy is based heavily on geometry. One does not need a bit of the common ancestry idea to work everything out. So the example of your prediction is NOT based on the evolution idea, but is on common logic. A creationist can comfortably work out the same scheme without a faith on evolution.

Sorry that I forgot what your second "application" was. What I really like to see is an example in which the methodology WON'T work without using the concept of common ancestry. So far, I am really really not convinced.

Creation model on genetics? You got me on this one. None? I can not make an argument now, but I really doubt that is true. May be God will tell me something at a later time. When it happened, I hope I could let you know.

 

[juvenissun]

What is silly is a creationist pretending that he knows more about biology than a biologist.

I think you are seeing things entirely upside down.

 

[bhsmte]

Just a logical heads up -. You have no idea who anyone is or what anyone does for a living on an anonymous forum



The opposite with a great weekend lined up. Thanks for asking.

I know, just normal operating procedure.

 

[bhsmte]

On an anonymous forum where identities are not verified its just silly to try and make a point of it and call people ignorant that you don't even know. You know nothing about any creationist or poster on here that does not agree with you. Please persist to act like you do but it won't make your reasoning any more rational

I do think we have learned a bit about you from your posts though.

 

[MikeEnders]

Interesting pictures and example. Thanks.

the only problem is that they were not relevant at all. He switched you from species that were comparatively similar and very closely related in his framework to ones who are neither. to make a dent against your point he should have least made an attempt to show two species anatomically similar to each together AND relatively unique from other species that don't have genetic similarities.

Not that it matters at this point. because

A) NO practical application would be lost because the study did not even isolate the genes related to Cholera resistance and awaits a larger study of modern human genes to get anything practical
B) Creationists would have used chimpanzees as anatomically similar just as well.

 

[MikeEnders]

I do think we have learned a bit about you from your posts though.

Not as much as I am learning about you from your last few posts that have been nothing but rhetoric and flame baiting

 

[bhsmte]

Not as much as I am learning about you from your last few posts that have been nothing but rhetoric and flame baiting

That's cool.

You make your observations and I will make mine.

 

[MikeEnders]

What is silly is a creationist pretending that he knows more about biology than a biologist.

No four things are even sillier

A) claiming I should accept who is and is not a biologist based upon your anonymous say so
B) Pretending you know what anyone doesn't do for a living
C) Begging that facts be taken as fact based on authority ( a known fallacious argument)
D) Adding nothing to a discussion but potshots

 

[bhsmte]

D=IRONY

 

[MikeEnders]

D=IRONY

The age?