quote:

By contrast, it will be seen that a phylogenomic view of orthologues extends beyond the usual model organisms to embrace a wider swath of evolutionary history using full PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTIONS and related techniques, all of which are better suited to the determination of function and, most significantly, of changes in function over time (Fig. 1). Similarly, the study of paralogues and pathways in an evolutionary context can provide insights into broader issues of PLEIOTROPY and functional REDUNDANCY that are of particular concern for drug discovery.

quote:

A strong motivation for the further study of orthology of drug targets is the fact that species differences of various kinds — for instance, in pathophysiology or drug metabolism — frequently hamper the progression of targets and compounds, often after quite significant investment. This indicates that even a marginally improved understanding of species differences could have a major impact on the cost of developing medicines.

quote:

A full phylogenetic reconstruction, incorporating as many homologues and intervening species as possible, can provide a much more reliable and informative orthologue call with appropriate statistical support.

quote:

Well I think ID has demonstrated it's applicable worth to biology as long as intelligence has been utilized to modify biology; and to our knowledge this has been going on for several thousand years.

quote:

What do you mean by intelligence being “utilized to modify biology”? Do you just mean that the scientific method itself, as applied to biology, is the result of intelligence? If that’s what you mean, it isn’t a meaningful comparison, since I was asking for benefits of ID specifically—that is, the hypothesis that certain biological functions must have been the result of intelligence. Since the scientific method, and the way in which it was designed, is the same for almost all areas of science, this doesn’t demonstrate anything about ID in particular.

Or are you saying that other fields of biology has been modified as a result of ID itself? If so, how?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Now, regarding contributions made by creationism, I would reinforce Jack's mention of the intelligent modification of organisms. The scientific discipline of animal husbandry is firmly rooted in creationism, not evolutionary nonsense!

quote:

I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology.

quote:

I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology.

What can be more pro-creative than animal husbandry?

That would seem to be the point of the endeavor...

quote:

Jhud, animal husbandry does not use any prediction of creation theology as tool for performing animal husbandry. I'm fairly sure there are no predictions from creation theology that we can use in this world in biological fields.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Jhud, animal husbandry does not use any prediction of creation theology as tool for performing animal husbandry. I'm fairly sure there are no predictions from creation theology that we can use in this world in biological fields.

Sure there are:

God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.

Seems like a pretty basic, and verified prediction, confirmed more times than can be counted - and not to mention, depended on those who raise livestock worldwide.

quote:

non-sequitur.

quote:

The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them. According to your argument, something doesn’t count as a useful application of evolutionary biology if it’s something that doesn’t specifically contradict creationism. Yet on the other hand you make the argument that since animal husbandry can be said to incorporate predictions made by creationism, it does count as a useful application of creationism, even though this particular example is completely consistent with both evolution and creationism also.

So which is it? Does animal husbandry count as an application of creationism when it’s completely consistent with the predictions made by evolution, and do the results of our understanding of adaptation count as applications of evolution when this idea doesn’t contradict creationism? You can’t have it both ways.

quote:

These are not just useful predictions made by our understanding of adaptation and natural selection; they’re useful predictions made by common descent.

quote:

The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo)

quote:

The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them.

quote:

You can’t have it both ways.

quote:

Your very odd point here (which incidentally supports the notion that 'creation science' in it's rawest form is useful to animal husbandry) seems to be that because 'micro-evolution' and creationism don't disagree here, evolution is therefore true. Which would rather be like saying that because Newton's view of gravity is consistent with Einsteins at certain points, Newton's view must be true!

And I say this as an amused observer who has neither a stake in in creationism per se, nor evolution.

quote:

No, that isn’t my point. And I’m not sure how to make my point any clearer.

Read my post again, especially the last paragraph. Do you not understand how there’s a logical contradiction between the argument you’re using and the one DrMark is using?

If you don’t, perhaps one of the other posters can explain it. It’s not a very difficult point, and most people other than you probably won’t have trouble understanding it.

quote:

I am not sure how that contradicts what drmark is saying. Perhaps he can explain it to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo) are compatible with the creationist worldview, but they’re still aspects of the theory of evolution, which weren’t understood before Darwin explained them. According to your argument, something doesn’t count as a useful application of evolutionary biology if it’s something that doesn’t specifically contradict creationism. Yet on the other hand you make the argument that since animal husbandry can be said to incorporate predictions made by creationism, it does count as a useful application of creationism, even though this particular example is completely consistent with both evolution and creationism also.

So which is it? Does animal husbandry count as an application of creationism when it’s completely consistent with the predictions made by evolution, and do the results of our understanding of adaptation count as applications of evolution when this idea doesn’t contradict creationism? You can’t have it both ways.

Your very odd point here (which incidentally supports the notion that 'creation science' in it's rawest form is useful to animal husbandry) seems to be that because 'micro-evolution' and creationism don't disagree here, evolution is therefore true. Which would rather be like saying that because Newton's view of gravity is consistent with Einsteins at certain points, Newton's view must be true!

And I say this as an amused observer who has neither a stake in in creationism per se, nor evolution.

quote:

Great point Jhud! Physics is a great example of how "truth" can be "relative". The "relative" variable in Physics is mass and velocity. Einstein is more true when mass and velocity are very large. Both theories described by Newton and Einstein are inaccurate, but Einstein's theory is definitely more accurate and neither is described by the Bible. The claim most Christians that also subscribe to the theory of evolution is that evolution is so more accurate than any other proposed explanation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Great point Jhud! Physics is a great example of how "truth" can be "relative". The "relative" variable in Physics is mass and velocity. Einstein is more true when mass and velocity are very large. Both theories described by Newton and Einstein are inaccurate, but Einstein's theory is definitely more accurate and neither is described by the Bible. The claim most Christians that also subscribe to the theory of evolution is that evolution is so more accurate than any other proposed explanation.

Wow, I don't think I have seen a greater conflation of terms and ideas into a more confusing mass of nonsense than this post. It's impossible to repond to in any intelligible way.

quote:

Yes I understand science is a confusing topic for you.

quote:

Posting to anyone in particular Agahnim?