Rejection notices

[lucaspa]

LOL, your a funny guy, this is all philosophical.

It's all practical and necessary.

So, if the theory of evolution were falsified, would you quit doing stem cell research on rats? Would it no longer be applicable to humans?

I would have to go thru EVERY animal to see if their stem cells were like humans'. I would spend all my time finding animal models for human disease and would have no time to spend actually making treatments for humans.

How many rats a year do you sacrifice on the alter of science?

Right now? None. Since the stem cells can grow and divide indefinitely, once I have them I don't need to make any more.

For testing treatments using the stem cells, it depends on the experiments. We've used 40 rats so far testing the ability of the stem cells to regenerate spinal cords to cure paralysis. We used 40 rabbits to demonstrate that the stem cells would regenerate the meniscus in the knee.

Also, why stem cells, why not bone marrow?

John, what do you think it is in bone marrow that is being looked at? Adult stem cells. I perfer to get them from the skin or from skeletal muscle because biopsing those from people is a lot less painful and doesn't have the potential to cause the troubles that taking a bone marrow aspirate does.

 

[lucaspa]

I still don't see what the theory of evolution has to do with it.

I have a friend who is using rats for research on premature lung development and as far as I know he does not even believe the theory of evolution. But he is still doing research just like Lucas is.

That your friend doesn't believe in it has nothing to do with whether he is using it. Ask your friend how they picked rats to study premature lung development. Why rats instead of, say, salamanders. My guess your friend will answer: because everyone uses them or because they are mammals.

The first just displays his ignorance. The second shows he is using evolution. Why mammals? Why not lizards? If rats and humans are separate kinds, why should their lung development be similar? Why couldn't the Creator have made human lung development the same as snakes and rats a completely diffferent lung development?

Answer the question, John. You are good at asking questions, and then playing dumb at the answers. So be polite and answer the questions put to you.

 

[Jet Black]

Right now? None. Since the stem cells can grow and divide indefinitely, once I have them I don't need to make any more.

forgive me for troubling you with something I probably heard on TV ages ago, but I thought that cells "aged" when they divide... something to do with the telomeres shortening if I recall correctly... is that not the case with stem cells then?

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Drotar, do any of the publications listed show the earth to be young? Do any of them in any way relate to creationism the theory? No.

Why not? If creationism is such a valid theory, why doesn't Humphreys publish on it? Why are all his publications in the peer-reviewed literature supporting old universe and standard physics?

Darwin convinced his scientific colleagues. The geologists who falsified young earth convinced their scientific colleagues. When Eldredge and Gould challenged phyletic gradualism, they did so in a peer-reviewed paper.

So, why don't Humphreys' papers deal with a young earth? Why don't any of them talk about what Humphreys writes for ICR and AiG? Why doesn't Humphreys try to convince his scientific colleagues instead of convincing someone like you who has very little or no knowledge of physics?

 

[notto]

So, why don't Humphreys' papers deal with a young earth? Why don't any of them talk about what Humphreys writes for ICR and AiG? Why doesn't Humphreys try to convince his scientific colleagues instead of convincing someone like you who has very little or no knowledge of physics?

If you can't see why a comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments can't be used to support a young earth, you just aren't trying hard enough.

 

[MartinM]

I believe that Dr. Russel Humphreys for one has published such, two papers which have been published widely among Creationists

Were his creationist 'theories' published in mainstream journals? Of course not. Because, to put it politely, they're utter bunk.

In fact, if you look at his resume, you'll find nothing whatsoever connected to general relativity - which is the field his 'starlight and time' notion mangles.

 

[lucaspa]

forgive me for troubling you with something I probably heard on TV ages ago, but I thought that cells "aged" when they divide... something to do with the telomeres shortening if I recall correctly... is that not the case with stem cells then?

Right. Most cells do have a set number of cell doublings and then they senesce and die. The doubling changes from species to species. For humans it's about 50, for mice about 30. And the "clock" is related to telomeres. They shorten with each cell division.

However, some cells transcribe an enzyme called telomerase which restores the telomeres after each cell division. Stem cells do this. Therefore they do not senesce and die, apparently. Everyone is still checking that one out.

 

[lucaspa]

If you can't see why a comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments can't be used to support a young earth, you just aren't trying hard enough.

LOL! I'm sure John could make the connection! He misses all the obvious ones so to balance he must be able to these kinds of connections.

 

[Jet Black]

Right. Most cells do have a set number of cell doublings and then they senesce and die. The doubling changes from species to species. For humans it's about 50, for mice about 30. And the "clock" is related to telomeres. They shorten with each cell division.

However, some cells transcribe an enzyme called telomerase which restores the telomeres after each cell division. Stem cells do this. Therefore they do not senesce and die, apparently. Everyone is still checking that one out.

thanks I see now.

 

[JohnR7]

I would have to go thru EVERY animal to see if their stem cells were like humans'. I would spend all my time finding animal models for human disease and would have no time to spend actually making treatments for humans.

Why are rat stem cells more human than other animals? What makes a rat's stem cells more human than a hamster? I thought they used rats because the animal activists complain less about them.

Right now? None. Since the stem cells can grow and divide indefinitely, once I have them I don't need to make any more.

So when they say that Adam and Eve were to live forever, there is some scientific evidence for that?

Isaiah 65:20
"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

When I read about how during the next 1000 years people are going to live a lot longer, I wonder if that is not somehow connected to the research that people like you are doing now.

My friend says he has a Phd, because that is what he enjoys to do. Most people do not like it, but he enjoys it. Perhaps God has blessed it in a way to give him contentment and satisfaction in what he does.

 

[JohnR7]

Ask your friend how they picked rats to study premature lung development.

I could ask him again, but my understanding was that if he were to use other animals like a monkey, the animal activists would get upset. Although there seems to be more of a problem with that in Sweden then what he runs into here in America.

Why couldn't the Creator have made human lung development the same as snakes and rats a completely diffferent lung development?

Why would you expect reptiles and mammals to be alike. They have different living conditions. Still, we all breath the same air, so I would think that all mammals are going to have similar lungs.

 

[lucaspa]

I could ask him again, but my understanding was that if he were to use other animals like a monkey, the animal activists would get upset. Although there seems to be more of a problem with that in Sweden then what he runs into here in America.

Now, why would they want to use a monkey? What is so special about monkeys that they would be his first choice?

Thank you, John. You just showed that your friend may be a creationist on the outside, but he's an evolutionist on the inside!

Why would your friend think that monkeys would have lung development very much like humans? You already know the answer, so answer the other questions in this post, but this one is rhetorical.

Why would you expect reptiles and mammals to be alike. They have different living conditions.

Since when? Reptiles and mammals share the same habitats all over the world. There are rats in the desert and lizards and snakes in the desert. Rats on farms and lizards and snakes on farms.

I expect them to be different because their common ancestor is far in the past and they have had lots of time to diverge since then. But since they have the same living conditions, why do you expect them to be different?

Still, we all breath the same air, so I would think that all mammals are going to have similar lungs.

Really? Birds and reptiles also breathe the same air. So why don't you use them instead of rats? After all, I never saw an animal activist get upset over a snake or lizard. That would be even better for getting the animal activists off their back, wouldn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

Why are rat stem cells more human than other animals? What makes a rat's stem cells more human than a hamster? I thought they used rats because the animal activists complain less about them.

A rat's stem cells would be very similar to a hamster's in relation to humans. After all, hamsters, rats, and humans all shared the same common ancestor. A better source would be a monkey, but you already know why that is the case.

We use rats because:
1. They are evolutionarily close to humans.
2. They are small and thus easy to work with.
3. They are small and thus cheaper to house than larger animals like dogs.

The animal activists have very little to do with it.

So when they say that Adam and Eve were to live forever, there is some scientific evidence for that?

NO! First, the textual evidence in Genesis 3 is against it.
Second, once the stem cells become committed to a lineage to form a tissue, then the 50 cell doublings kick in. When they commit, the committed cells lose the transcription of telomerase.

Third, there aren't enough stem cells in the body to replace every cell. That's why we have to expand their numbers outside the body to use them as a treatment.

Fourth, the number of stem cells declines with age. The idea is that a stem cell divides and then one daughter cell enters a lineage, leaving one cell still as a stem cell. But mistakes occur in this and either 1) the stem cell commits without dividing or 2) both daughter cells enter a lineage.

So "Adam and Eve" never had enough stem cells to begin with to live forever and were going to lose the ones they had over time anyway.

The best research on living longer actually comes from evolution where selecting animals that live longer finds mutations and alleles of genes that extend life.

Just think, John! If ever we get a drug to extend the human lifespan, it will come from evolution! Which you say doesn't work! So I presume you will refuse to take the drug because it can't possibly work because it comes from evolution. Right?