Applications of Phylogenetics in Medicine and Public Health

Recently discovered blog that is well worth reading and signing on.
While much of the minutia is beyond me and there is no mention of Liverpool anywhere, if you want some excellent ammo against those Young Earth Creationist Wallies then this site has all the firepower you could ever need.

EvoGrad

One of the most common charges levied against evolutionary biology is that it’s a useless science with no applications in the real world. If this was true it wouldn’t do anything to tarnish the validity of the evolutionary biology research, despite what many anti-evolutionists would have you believe. After all, the mark of a valid scientific theory isn’t the ability to derive lots of technological or humanitarian advances (although it’s obviously a nice bonus), but the ability to accurately describe existing data and predict future data. That being said, I’ll demonstrate here using just a specific set of examples that the charge that evolutionary biology is useless is patently false in the first place.

One of the most basic tools in the arsenal of an evolutionary biologist is the ability to construct phylogenetic trees from a dataset of characters to visualise the evolutionary relationships between a set of organisms. In the…

View original post 3,486 more words


36 thoughts on “Applications of Phylogenetics in Medicine and Public Health

          1. I go back to his ”debates” with Matt Dilahunty where he considered he won, yet almost every comment from each debate, including quite a few from Christians, were not so complimentary.
            The amount of hubris he demonstrates at almost every turn is quite astounding at times.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. JZ:

      Of course it will (be ignored by Creationists). Theirs is a world of emotion and such appeal, not of logic, reason, rationality and/or facts. (Face it, what chance does reason have against God?)

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Firepower? You do mean like a rifle shooting blanks. All noise and no power.

    I told you years ago that I have a PhD friend in microbiology- he says his colleagues recognize the impossibility of order and life apart from intelligence, but that they cannot admit the inevitable conclusion, so no, godless evolution lacks severely.

    Adaptations similar to the cell phone from the land line are not evolution.

    The zebra and the horse are not evolution.

    (Btw, your article here would be dismissed as irrelevant by anybody who sees the big picture- sorry but the atheistic/ evolutionary mind such as degrasse and Dawkins are really really small.

    Like

      1. Glad to help. But if you want pure comic relief, just watch 2 minutes of any Neil Degrasse video.

        For the size of his mouth, he proves how empty his head is.

        As to your post here, of course a lot of what the fella says is true. Does not change the fact of the origins of defects.

        What must be crippling to evolution is the sad fact that viruses still thrive. This must burst the bubbles of ‘scientists’ who cannot fathom WHY.

        I know why, according to the scriptures.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Didn’t I refer you to my micro friend who is just as acute of your guy here, if not more?

            All it takes is another point of view, and one well aware of the ORIGIN of such things.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Again .. so you didn’t read the article.
            And mentioning some unnamed ”micro friend” ( is he very small?) carries no weight whatsoever and merely makes you look silly..

            Liked by 2 people

          3. It’s a He. His name is William. He is quite the professor, and what he says of his colleagues admissions regarding their own findings is comical.

            I’ll not bring his place of tenure into this domain- after all, why subject him to a domain where Man is greater than God.

            I will say he has 35 yrs University experience and I heard him talk to atheists. He embarrasses them using their own arguments.

            His conclusions? One God. Period. End of story.

            Like

          4. Just so u know ark-

            It was BECAUSE of his honest study of science…… that he came to 2 distinct conclusions.

            The lab proves there is a God.

            And that design, and the scriptures, are not only compatible,
            but unequivocal in truth.

            TRUE science always leads to God. I have been telling u that for years.

            Like

      2. COMIC VALUE!!!!!? 😲🤣 What on this obviously 4.5 billion yr old spherical planet are you joking about Arkesatan!!!? Comic-value? Don’t you mean entertainment… on the level of Teletubbies on PBS Kids? 😉

        In case you do not get this fine tele-progamming over there in Johannesburg:

        ColorfulSprinkles is the yellow Tubbie, you know that ferocious little “kitty cat” with a bouncy thing atop its humongous head and big mean eyes. 😉

        Like

    1. @ ColonicStream:
      If cell phones had DNA, and sexually reproduced with variation, and the variations were heritable, that would be considered evolution. We call that descent with modification.

      Adaptations — or improvements — in the “evolution” of landlines to cell phones are a form of “artificial selection.” The existence of the latter — cellphones, that is — has not yet totally supplanted the former landlines, just as a descendant species doesn’t necessarily render an ancestral species suddenly extinct.

      But we needn’t go into actual biology, as you’re clearly incompetent. When it comes to your expertise in theological nonsense, however, I’m happy to defer.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sorry no. You are missing entirely WHY things change. No lab has this answer, neither does the 2nd law, neither do you, UNLESS you agree with living God and what death has wrought.

        Like

        1. @ShitStorm:
          A creationist invoking the “2nd law”[sic] never ends very well for the creationist. You’re on safer ground quoting scripture, even though most of us aren’t impressed by that, either.

          “UNLESS [sic] you agree…”

          Sounds very totalitarian. Immediately brought to my mind the image of someone holding a gun to my head.

          And still not impressive, nor persuasive.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Referencing someone who said this or that yet never providing the source is a cop-out to the nth degree and carries absolutely NO weight.

    And I can say this because my long-dead uncle who was a professor at a really reputable university made this observation.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Nan

      Referencing someone who said this or that yet never providing the source is a cop-out to the nth degree and carries absolutely NO weight.

      Much like the gospels, in fact!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s