Evolution

Aegeri · August 2003

Marine01

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>First Aegeri - dont give me Journals. For unadulterated bias you just cant go past scientific journals.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't know about that, perhaps you should look at a certain website posted recently.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is a reason no reasonable arguement for creation is ever put forward in journals - they arent allowed. If its completely unreasonable sure they will put you in for a bit of "strawman bashing" from the audience, but anything even slightly reasonable and the editors simply wont put you in.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Or maybe, and think about this, maybe there isn't anything valid to begin with? Perhaps you should stop looking at everything as a conspiracy and realise that creationist arguments are debating skills, not science.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>These journals are an evolutionairy backpatting club. You have a dissenting opinion you can sod of to the websites - which are of cause automatically classified bunk cause they didnt make it into the journals.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not really. If you read the list of journals I gave they aren't all specifically on evolution, some dealing with it very little. The thing is these journals give the basis of all scientific knowledge, and ALL are experiments that can be repeated, tested and quantified. That is fact, not conspiracy.

I'm honestly not very keen on getting into this whole conspiracy argument, because it is utterly stupid to begin with.

As for those websites, you honestly think that the stuff on the appendix is even remotely right? I certainly hope not. That wouldn't get into a journal today because it is so horrifically incorrect it isn't worth printing.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for the claim bigot - bigot simply means to be unreasonably convinced of the rightness of your own ideals. And you, having probably never read a single decent artical in your much vaunted magazines that reasonably defended creationism feel that you are quite reasonably convinced of the rightness of your ideas.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I suggest you read that website before you comment. I have read many decent articles, just there aren't any that bother defending creationism, because again, it is about debating and not science. There is a huge difference between the two things. I'm not convinced of my ideas through the fact the creationist argument is completely wrong, I know what I think because I've done it in labs and my own education. I work with genes, microbes and many other basic tools for evolutionary analysis every day. I've read and continue to read the massive body of evidence FOR evolution and what the many hypotheses and debates about aspects of it. It is immeasurably complex science that spans multi-disciplines, reading one heavily biased and filled with errors website isn't anywhere near as good as Journals. One gives you a completely warped look, the other gives you information that is at least based of factual evidence.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Classic evolutionary filtering. We get to decide whose valid and who isnt. If your not published in our magazine then you are not valid. We are not going to let you publish, therefore you arent valid.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, again, this conspiracy crap is utterly rubbish. You won't even concede the possibility that these articles don't have any grounding in science at all. Again, debating skills don't get published in Journal articles.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Call it a conspiracy if you will, but if it was true - how the hell would you know?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because I know how to write to a scientific journal, read many of them and have a good understanding of what IS published etc. The only conspiracy really is the one in your head. The one that doesn't exist.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And as for the crack about the appendix - the appendix is known to have several functions, one of which is in the immune system. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Look, I'm an immunologist, I do not believe you are. I can tell you right now that the appendix plays no significant role in the immune system at all. People who have had their appendixs removed suffer no ill consequences immunologically. You do not need your appendix at all, as such it is a vestigial organ. You just don't know what you are talking about.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now there are only a few, and even those they are hesitant to just whip out. Time and time again it has been shown that if you dont know what purpose something serves, its probably not clever to assume it has none. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Really, like vestigial ear muscles, tail bone, genetic elements etc? Funny that.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I know a lot of the time they make blanket statements, and they probably shouldnt, but its really hard to write a document and every time you make a quote to qualify it down to the ground. If you pushed the author on that point, I'm sure he'd agree with you Samwise - Mutations, gene swapping whatever is almost always harmful.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No actually. Some harmful mutations even sometimes have a benefit to the organsim that carries it, such as sickle cell anemia. Once again, you just affirm why I don't accept websites and the like. They don't make an effort to be correct.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hes not writing a thesis or a scientific article there - its an article designed to put his point of view across. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Thank you for agreeing with me as to why these aren't valid.

p4Samwise · August 2003

I doubt it, because that one point is what the entire document consists of. It's said over and over - a random mutation can never produce a benefit in a complex organism.

After reading that, I didn't have the appetite to follow the rest of the links.

Aegeri · August 2003

Incidently marine, on the appendix some more, the appendix is a good example of a vestigial organ as its role has been replaced. Preyers patches basically remove whatever function it used to have. Preyers patches, not mentioned in the answersingenesis link (funny that!) are the most important immune tissue in the gastroentestinal tract. Essentially made of many microfold or M cells, they are the primary collector of antigen for the small intestine and many other mucoid tissues in the gastroentestinal tract.

The appendix however recieves little antigen, does not play a significant role in either humoral or cell mediated responces (whereas preyers patches are insanely important) and gets a whopping 2 pages in Janeways immunobiology.

Page 9 (one mention) and page 403, where it gets a mentioned. Both focus almost entirely on preyers patches.

-Immunobiology: The immune system in health and disease. Janeway <i>et al</i>.

Marine0I · August 2003

Admittedly Creation websites suffer from bias - but please dont try and tell me the evolutionists dont suffer the same thing.

Aegeri you sure wrote a bit - but you had absolutely nothing there that actually showed that the creationists werent being discriminated against. NOTHING. Now I personally have heard the creationists complaining a bit - and you are dismissing them out of hand.

You might as well have saved your fingers and just typed "sif".

"... and ALL are experiments that can be repeated, tested and quantified. That is fact, not conspiracy"

Im with you there.

You must realise that creation scientists look at the exact same facts you do and simply interpret them differently.

"You won't even concede the possibility that these articles don't have any grounding in science at all."

I will concede that possibility, but you've never read their articles yourself. I'm sure some have been dismissed based on lack of scientific grounding, but that doesnt mean thats why they are all being dismissed.

Appendix plays no SIGNIFICANT role - but it does play a role, or can. From what I'm told it can play backup - of course being an immunologist you can tell me whether im wrong or not.

I have heard the sickle cell anemia arguement before, and again its just sideways evolution. No information gained, just some lost or twisted and befits found.

EDIT whoa whoa whoa - I cant comment on the above said. I havent the foggiest what your talking about. Doesnt make it right of course - but go pick on someone your own size if we are going to argue in terms of immunobiology.

EDIT I know you have little respect for answeringenesis - but you must remember their target audience. Similarily evolutionairy website dont target the scientifically inclined generally. They dont publish every single answer to every query that could be bought up by a qualified scientist - that would alienate their target audience.

I'd be really interested to hear what you think of the Creation Technical Journal?

Aegeri · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Admittedly Creation websites suffer from bias - but please dont try and tell me the evolutionists dont suffer the same thing</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't believe I did.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Aegeri you sure wrote a bit - but you had absolutely nothing there that actually showed that the creationists werent being discriminated against. NOTHING. Now I personally have heard the creationists complaining a bit - and you are dismissing them out of hand.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And you've not shown a thing either and yours is probably the more ridiculous notion. End of story, I'm tiring of this. They can complain all they like, when they do proper science they won't get hammered. The burdon of proof lies with the prosecution, and there isn't a single tangible piece of evidence to suggest any such conspiracy. I don't have to provide evidence to debunk a conspiracy that doesn't exist, you merely have to prove it does. I have yet to see anything that does other than certain creationists who have published very few papers of a non creationist sort anyway (which says a lot right there).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You might as well have saved your fingers and just typed "sif".</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I was, but decided to elaborate a bit more. I'm tiring of this however, I've done this so many times now it isn't funny. I'm sick of this stupid tangenet.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You must realise that creation scientists look at the exact same facts you do and simply interpret them differently.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> that is why they don't get into journals. Because they interpret them 'THEIR' way. They start with their conclusion and NO MATTER THE RESULT always end up with it. That is why it isn't science, that is why they are the scientific communities laughing stock, that is why they don't get into journals and that is why they use debating techniques and not science!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I will concede that possibility, but you've never read their articles yourself. I'm sure some have been dismissed based on lack of scientific grounding, but that doesnt mean thats why they are all being dismissed.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, I know not all of them have myself. Just these are usually at least reasonable. It is true however there are no creationist articles in any journals because of the way they choose to bend facts.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Appendix plays no SIGNIFICANT role - but it does play a role, or can. From what I'm told it can play backup - of course being an immunologist you can tell me whether im wrong or not.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're not going to believe me anyway. I've told you why it is vestigial. ****, I could have a ph.D (another few years yet), post it up and give you a massively detailed explanation and you still would think that I'm an idiot who's biased from the conspiracy in textbooks and journals (which is why I tire of this argument, which hasn't got a SINGLE DROP OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE).

I just can't be stuffed.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have heard the sickle cell anemia arguement before, and again its just sideways evolution. No information gained, just some lost or twisted and befits found.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yes, it is a change of a glycine amino acid to a valine amino acid. It is only a single base pair substitution.

However, thank you for missing the point entirely.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EDIT whoa whoa whoa - I cant comment on the above said. I havent the foggiest what your talking about. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Then don't say "The appendix has a function.." if you don't know what you are talking about. It is like the antibiotic resistance in another thread, if you don't understand what you are talking about say nothing at all. This is why I haven't said anything in the brain thread, I know little about the brain other than you can coax antibodies into it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EDIT I know you have little respect for answeringenesis - but you must remember their target audience. Similarily evolutionairy website dont target the scientifically inclined generally. They dont publish every single answer to every query that could be bought up by a qualified scientist - that would alienate their target audience.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hell, I don't even like talkorigins.com. And I don't have little respect for AIG, I have utterly none.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'd be really interested to hear what you think of the Creation Technical Journal? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not a lot. It has a low circulation and is not regarded as important by just about anyone. I've only ever seen 1-2 copies of it however, because it doesn't seem to be widely produced. For example, you can't go into the local science library and find it, you have to go to the local creationist church.

Essentially, it's just a book pretending to be a journal.

Marine0I · August 2003

Bleh, you were dismissing ALL creation websites out of hand based on the fact that they were biased, as if you had the higher ground there.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. However, the prosecution is denied access to the courthouse. According to you it is impossible for me to prove myself unless I'm in the glorified journal. By your standing - you have denied the creationist a trial. The creationsist are claiming they cant get in the courthouse. Your telling them to prove themselves in court.

My Lord you think scientists dont interpret things "Their way". To almost all evolutionairy scientists, evolution is not a theory. Its a fact. Everything they do is interpreted through the framework that evolution is unchallengable. Dont give me this "evolutionairy scientists are impartial" tripe. Everyone has a bias.

"They start with their conclusion and NO MATTER THE RESULT always end up with it." Easy statement to make, difficult to prove. Show me. Now your making the same blanket statements you criticise the creationists with.

"It is true however there are no creationist articles in any journals because of the way they choose to bend facts." Another unprovable blanket statement - is this blanket week?

Okay I can see your post above, I musta passed over it. I'd have to hear from an equivalent creationist immunobiologist before I accepted it, but it does look pretty solid.

I didnt say the appendix had a function - i said i had been TOLD it had a function.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Not a lot. It has a low circulation and is not regarded as important by just about anyone. I've only ever seen 1-2 copies of it however, because it doesn't seem to be widely produced. For example, you can't go into the local science library and find it, you have to go to the local creationist church.

Essentially, it's just a book pretending to be a journal.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Aegeri your a great bloke to play ns with, but you havent even read the dang thing from what I gather, yet you can make blanket statements like "its a book pretending to be a journal". Have a read and then tell me that. If it really is, then you'll definately know when you've finished reading one.

Its the creationists journal they created because they werent allowed in the other journals.

kida · August 2003

Woh woh who, lets calm down here please before that mysterious ol' nem pops around the corner and says, <span style='font-family:Courier'>IN THE NAME OF FLAYRA, I CONDEMN THIS TOPIC TO LOCK</span>...<i><u>Mmmkay</u>?</i>

Twex · August 2003

Re: vestigial organs

So I'm supposed to believe that in all the time nature had (enough to evolve opposable thumbs and a sentient(!) brain, mind you), it wasn't able to get rid of a completely useless bag of colon? Even worse than useless, as it sometimes gets a dangerous inflammation.

Certainly all the mutants without an appendix fared better than those with one, did they not?

And we've heard nothing biological about the hymen yet, so what's its function?

Marine0I · August 2003

Okay kida your right, this is getting a bit heated. I apologise for my stronger language and criticisms, and I'll try to keep myself a little bit more civil.

EDIT Twex the standard evolutionairy arguement to that would probably be that it only became vestigal "recently".

Aegeri · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bleh, you were dismissing ALL creation websites out of hand based on the fact that they were biased, as if you had the higher ground there.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I never said that, I said they were not <b><i>peer reviewed</b></i>.

Different entirely. If you note, I never accept websites at ALL. Did you not notice me also disregard talkorigins?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. However, the prosecution is denied access to the courthouse. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Or perhaps the case was already lost. Either way, if there is no evidence to bring forward then the police can't prosecute and hence a trial can never eventuate.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> According to you it is impossible for me to prove myself unless I'm in the glorified journal. By your standing - you have denied the creationist a trial. The creationsist are claiming they cant get in the courthouse. Your telling them to prove themselves in court.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not really (see above).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My Lord you think scientists dont interpret things "Their way". To almost all evolutionairy scientists, evolution is not a theory. Its a fact.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well it is a fact because there is such a large body of evidence for it. People have been throwing around the word 'law' a lot.

Do I agree with that? No, not entirely yet. I have another 3 or so years of education to do before I make up my mind fully.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Dont give me this "evolutionairy scientists are impartial" tripe. Everyone has a bias</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The difference is, I don't write my conclusion first and then try and prove it. I don't say, "my mice showed no responce to the antigen at all" and then immediately just say but "my vaccine still works anyway, must of been an error". Re read what I've already said.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Easy statement to make, difficult to prove. Show me. Now your making the same blanket statements you criticise the creationists with.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The appendix on answersingenesis, or the firmament in the sky argument (which I don't believe is in use anymore) and many others. In general, this is completely true of creation scientists, not all of them, but certainly the majority have to 'creatively interpret' results to meet their conclusions.

If you don't know what I am talking about still, the simplest thing is the world is 6000 years old tangent. Creationists will ALWAYS establish that date no matter the results, merely assuming an error if they don't. That is putting your conclusion first and not bothering with the results. They might as well just make it up!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Another unprovable blanket statement - is this blanket week?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Is this "blind" week? Read the article on the appendix, read my comments on one of the websites.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Okay I can see your post above, I musta passed over it. I'd have to hear from an equivalent creationist immunobiologist before I accepted it, but it does look pretty solid.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> Don't patronise me, honestly, Janeway is probably a lot more credible than any creationist immunobiologist. There is a reason that group have wrote one of the top immunology textbooks :/

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I didnt say the appendix had a function - i said i had been TOLD it had a function.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<i>I've never said it has no function, I've said it's original function has been superceeded by other structures. As it has no primary selective benefit on its own, doesn't play a significant role in the immune system at any point etc. There is a large difference.</i>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Aegeri your a great bloke to play ns with, but you havent even read the dang thing from what I gather, yet you can make blanket statements like "its a book pretending to be a journal". Have a read and then tell me that. If it really is, then you'll definately know when you've finished reading one.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Perhaps I should reiterate this:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>I've only ever seen 1-2 copies of it however, because it doesn't seem to be widely produced. For example, you can't go into the local science library and find it, you have to go to the local creationist church.
</b></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Most credible scientific journals are found in a university science library, this is not. I have seen it, and read it and as I alluded to was thouroughly unimpressed. The articles are definitely clearly refuted for good reasons. One article in particular tried to claim that C14 dating was the only form of radiation dating available! I've never been overly impressed with creationist books on the whole.

And again, it isn't nature and it isn't science, which are arguably the top two journals in the world. If they have to make their own journal and then radically bias it for them, then they have already failed.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Its the creationists journal they created because they werent allowed in the other journals.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I know, and for good reason as well. Again, I am getting sick of explaining this.

This is my last post on this subject because I'm hijacking poor Samwises thread and that was never my intent. I am not interested in arguing about non existent, baseless conspiracies nor am I interested in debating the merits of creationist websites that can't even get basic facts right.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EDIT Twex the standard evolutionairy arguement to that would probably be that it only became vestigal "recently". </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The standard, but not 'new' argument.

Oh not another one...

Twex

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So I'm supposed to believe that in all the time nature had (enough to evolve opposable thumbs and a sentient(!) brain, mind you), it wasn't able to get rid of a completely useless bag of colon? Even worse than useless, as it sometimes gets an inflammation.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Why not? You have muscles that normally control your ear movements that do nothing also. You also produce a tail bone.

The problem with getting rid of something is it might not actually be that simple. The appendix could be part of the same gene as another gastroentestinal organ. Many genes in fact make multiple kinds of stuff on the other side due to the ability to alternatively splice out different introns and exons. What makes stirated muscle in one tissue, makes smooth muscle in another depending on what DNA is turned on and off. Possibly the appendix is produced from the alternative splicing of certain stretches of DNA, therefore making it impossible to lose.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Certainly all the mutants without an appendix fared better than the those with one, did they not?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Probably they lacked another essential thing due to the general degradation of DNA. It also depends on what the thing is, appendicitis doesn't kill many people and selection pressures would be weak at best.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And we've heard nothing biological about the hymen yet,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

From memory it is a barrier to protect the inside region of the **** from microbial infection. A low pH and other things also helps. Essentially it is to help prevent damage from microorganisms to the **** before mating can occur.

As I said, this is my last post on the subject of consipracies and other crap.

Marine0I · August 2003

Well, I guess since this is the last post then I get the last word. First off I wasnt patronising anyone. You sounded like you knew what you were talking about. However the "I wouldnt trust a creationist immunobiologist" bit just shows your own bias. You have assumed the man is an idiot, and feel justified in insinutating that he isnt competent simply because hes a creationist.

Aegeri - circular reasoning is a proven logical fallacy. And thats exactly what your using to ridicule the creationists. Please dont say "maybe". The example I gave was COMPLETELY circular. You have to prove your case in the courts. Our case is that we cant get in the court. In that case your wrong. Why are we wrong. Because you cant prove your case in the courts. But we cant get in the courts.... etc. It goes round and round - its circular reasoning - and as such a rational person such as yourself really shouldnt be accepting it.

Unless you want to of course debate whether circular reasoning is right or wrong?

As for creationists and their dating - sure they have a bias. I dont know if its as strong as you make out. The same holds true for the evolutionist though. No evolutionist ever comes back without millions of years. Ever. How do you know he is not using the same sort of "preestablished facts that he sets out to prove". And I already know your answer - hes in journal. Brings us right back to circular reasoning. And yet he tries to claim he is somehow better or more valid than the creation scientist?

As to blind week - yes it is. I missed that post. As for the rest of your post - it all comes back to the circular reasoning. You give me some other way they can prove themselves other than in your journals, and I'll listen.

Stop calling it baseless and stupid. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absense.

Aegeri · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 31 2003, 02:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> . </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"I wouldnt trust a creationist immunobiologist" bit just shows your own bias. You have assumed the man is an idiot, and feel justified in insinutating that he isnt competent simply because hes a creationist.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

compared to

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <b>Janeway is <i>probably</i> a lot more credible than any creationist immunobiologist. </b></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Got reading comprehension? Honestly, I have tried my damndest not to go all burger ninja on you.

And quite frankly the above is true, Janeway is a world RECOGNISED immunologist.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It goes round and round - its circular reasoning - and as such a rational person such as yourself really shouldnt be accepting it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

As I said, I've stopped arguing on this tangent. IMO common sense wins the day end of story.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The same holds true for the evolutionist though. No evolutionist ever comes back without millions of years. Ever.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<b><i>Because the dating methods very rarely in fact, never, come back with dates that are extremely small when not expected in some techniques. Potassium argon dating is known to be very accurate, and is rarely attacked too. Even when they have they have been, mostly carbon dating, these do get printed and further investigated often with interesting results which explained why. When a creationist does it the result is regarded as an error and the original conclusion upheld. Understand the point. </b></i>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You give me some other way they can prove themselves other than in your journals, and I'll listen.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Textbooks or other peer reviewed sources. It is so damn hard to miss this?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Stop calling it baseless and stupid. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absense.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Fine, I'll call it ignorant and insulting to the entire scientific community by a few people who don't have a clue.

Marine0I · August 2003

Okay Aegeri, on the first bit you have me there. I'm definately wrong, you werent criticising him out of hand. Sorry.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I said, I've stopped arguing on this tangent. IMO common sense wins the day end of story.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Stop argueing if you like, I think your last bit sums it up. Common sense wins the day - and common sense rules against circular reasoning, the basis of your arguement about journals and creation scientists.

You're right, potassium argon dating is very rarely attacked. C14 takes all the flak. But they seem pretty similar to me. Both are based on a "closed environment" situation, which doesnt exist in nature, and most creationists feel that both can be attacked with the same arguement. Both dating methods require the assumption that no carbon, (or potassium and argon) has left the system, and that no factors have been present that would hasten the decay of carbon isotopes or whatever.

And as for disregarding the results - ever heard this quote? (not direct)

If the date fits with original premise, we include it in the body. If the date is close but not spot on we put it in a footnote. If the date completely disagrees, we leave it out altogether.

That was an evolutionist speaking there - and it sounds suspiciously familiar to what your accusing the creationist of. If you want me to find the source, I'll try and get it for you.

Dating is pretty dodgy, be it potassium argon or carbon, especially the longer the range of the forecast gets.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Textbooks or other peer reviewed sources.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

All of which take the same stance as the journals (which are the peer reviewed sources if I'm understanding correctly).

Aegeri · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the date fits with original premise, we include it in the body. If the date is close but not spot on we put it in a footnote. If the date completely disagrees, we leave it out altogether.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oddly, I never see that happen.

Quoting out of context++?

Certainly.

Bogglesteinsky · August 2003

disclaimer:

I have only read the first few posts, so i will not be trying to argue with anyone

my 2p:

Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution. I have not read the book, i only studied it for two weeks for GCSE biology, but here we go

Evolution as in Survival of the fittest does happen. it is perfectly logical that a species will get better all the time - faster rabbits being bred because they get caught less often by foxes. Does this produce new species? No

Evolution as in new species from genetic mutation. imo, absolute codswallop. name me ONE useful genetic mutation in the world today (dont say sickle cell anemia - it kills its sufferers by 30 - not helpful) New species appearing by mutation, even less likely than by SOF. let me illustrate my point by an extreme example. lets say that a fish egg gets zapped with radiation from the sun that causes it's genetic code to turn into that of an elephant. If the elephant survives and is born successfully, it becomes the only elephant in the world. now, to pass its genes on, it has got to find a female elephant. the chances of this are so small you may as well go and find a talking rock.

Marine0I · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Aug 31 2003, 02:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the date fits with original premise, we include it in the body. If the date is close but not spot on we put it in a footnote. If the date completely disagrees, we leave it out altogether.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oddly, I never see that happen.

Quoting out of context++?

Certainly.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Well I can see how you come to that conclusion given that I have provided no source, so I'll do my best to find the source and pm or post it if the threads still going.

Strange that you are now silent on the issue of evolutionairy circular reasoning? Maybe your just sick of this argument? Or maybe theres another reason..... Please I'd love to hear something better than "that ideas rubbish". Please answer my question - if the creationists are barred from scientific journals, and have to be in these journals to prove themselves, how is it possible for them to have their ideas accepted?

You have yet to point out a logical flaw in my arguement and say "and THATS where it all falls down!"

BTW why would you see that happen? You dont work in paleontology do you? Neither do I, but still.

Marine0I · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 31 2003, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Evolution as in Survival of the fittest does happen. it is perfectly logical that a species will get better all the time - faster rabbits being bred because they get caught less often by foxes. Does this produce new species? No

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I think you might mean "I believe in natural-selection, however I dont believe that it creates new species." If thats what your saying boogle then im with you there.

There are some helpful things produced by genetic mutation - the most common example being beetles with wings on an island. Thanks to a genetic mutation, they have lost their wings, and thus dont get blown out to sea flying as often. Now that mutation is helpful, but it is the loss of genetic information. To get from a molecule to a man you need GAIN of useful genetic information, something which I'm pretty sure hasnt happened, or at least been proved to have happened in nature.

Aegeri · August 2003

Sigh...boggle

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>dont say sickle cell anemia - it kills its sufferers by 30 - not helpful</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And Malaria would kill them before 15. What is more useful? Do you know what Sickle cell does and how it interacts with malaria?

Oh and bubonic plague resistance in delta 28. Checkmate.

Marine01

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> To get from a molecule to a man you need GAIN of useful genetic information, something which I'm pretty sure hasnt happened, or at least been proved to have happened in nature.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Urhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You just won't listen!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Strange that you are now silent on the issue of evolutionairy circular reasoning? Maybe your just sick of this argument? Or maybe theres another reason..... Please I'd love to hear something better than "that ideas rubbish". Please answer my question - if the creationists are barred from scientific journals, and have to be in these journals to prove themselves, how is it possible for them to have their ideas accepted?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN EVIDENCE OR ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS ANY SORT OF CONSPIRACY AT ALL AGAINST CREATIONISTS. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT AS A RESULT AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO EVEN MAKE ANY SORT OF ALLEGATION. IT IS A RETARDED ARGUMENT AND IS UTTERLY RUBBISH.

Just use your common sense. I read all manner of journals, and evolution is very interested in the study of fossils. I've yet to see dates be done like that at all.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I said, I've stopped arguing on this tangent. IMO common sense wins the day end of story.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I know, and for good reason as well. Again, I am getting sick of explaining this.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I said, this is my last post on the subject of consipracies and other crap. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Over, tell someone who cares.

Bogglesteinsky · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Aug 31 2003, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Sigh...boggle

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>dont say sickle cell anemia - it kills its sufferers by 30 - not helpful</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And Malaria would kill them before 15. What is more useful? Do you know what Sickle cell does and how it interacts with malaria?
 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
yes

sickle cell anemia causes "sticky" haemoglobin. when the cell is low in oxygen, the haemoglobin stick together, forming long chains across the cell distorting it into the sickle shape, blocking up blood vessles and killing the cell. The malaria parasite attacks the blood cell and lowers its oxygen level, causing it to sickle and destroying the cell and the parasite.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>bubonic plague resistance in delta 28</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

for the benifit of the people who dropped biology as soon as they could. please explain

Marine0I · August 2003

So, you want me to post the complaints of creationists here do you? Fine. I'll find them and I'll do that - be prepared to hear from your old friends the aig.

From what you said, I gathered that the only way creationists could prove that they had a valid arguement was to publish in peer reviewed journals. Based on that I'm making a claim that its impossible for them to prove themselves. If you dont believe creationists are complaining about this - then I'll find their complaints.

That said I see no reason to continue arguing with you at this point - you have become a bit too emotional and this is going to degenerate into a flamefest pretty quick. I'd be happy to continue on a different day when you are more in control. This is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, so as such Im stopping as much for your sake as mine.

Aegeri · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you dont believe creationists are complaining about this - then I'll find their complaints.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I'll spell it for you simply, I'm sick of this retarded argument, if you cannot read then it is this simple:

<b>You can if you want, but I will not be replying so you'll be wasting your time</b>.

Boogle

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>for the benifit of the people who dropped biology as soon as they could. please explain </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

On T-cells there are specialised receptor for cytokines. The mutation in Delta 28 removes this receptor and makes the person immune to bubonic plague. This is because the bacterium relies on binding to this receptor and using it to penetrate into the cell. Without it the bacterium can't attach and is hence shot. These people pretty much survived the bubonic plague and many people of European descent might have it. Promisingly, it might have benefits in resisting AIDs.

Good call on sickle cell, however, you should realise that resistance to malaria is a massive advantage. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Bogglesteinsky · August 2003

thankyou for the explanation. i dont understand it, but thankyou

yes, surviving maleria is an advantage, but if it wasnt for maleria, sickle cell would just be another genetic killer

p4Samwise · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Aug 30 2003, 10:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is my last post on this subject because I'm hijacking poor Samwises thread  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Au contraire, I'm just shutting up for the most part because you're eminently more qualified than me to discuss this. Please continue. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

p4Samwise · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 31 2003, 12:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> yes, surviving maleria is an advantage, but if it wasnt for maleria, sickle cell would just be another genetic killer  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
And if it wasn't for air, lungs would be useless organs. Your point...? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

moultano · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 31 2003, 03:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> From what you said, I gathered that the only way creationists could prove that they had a valid arguement was to publish in peer reviewed journals. Based on that I'm making a claim that its impossible for them to prove themselves. If you dont believe creationists are complaining about this - then I'll find their complaints. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The burden of proof is now on you to find a creationist paper that satisfies these qualifications:

1. The paper has a degree of scientific accuracy and meticulousness that warrant its publication in a respectable scientific journal.
2. The paper was submitted for publication.
3. The paper was rejected.

Actually I'll be impressed if you can find one satisfying the first qualification.

Your notion of a conspiracy to restrict theories that oppose atheistic views is contradicted by historical fact. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed a lot of atheist physicists were very upset because it seemed to allow the idea of a creator. They had a vision of an eternal unchanging universe and they were uncomfortable with losing it. Their objections were rooted solely in their 'religious' bias against the idea. But as it turned out, the evidence was there to support it, and now virtually every physicist has accepted it as fact. If the evidence was there to support the propositions of creationism, the same thing would happen. It's not happening. Do the math.

Bogglesteinsky · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 31 2003, 09:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 31 2003, 12:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> yes, surviving maleria is an advantage, but if it wasnt for maleria, sickle cell would just be another genetic killer </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
And if it wasn't for air, lungs would be useless organs. Your point...? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
that is a good point, but thats not my point

my point is that in places where there is no risk of malaria, sickle cell is just another killer, killing people before they get to 30.

only a certain percentage of the worl is at rick of malaria. outside those zones, sickle cell is <b>not</b> a beneficial mutation

Sirus · August 2003

Well. I'm going to take a leave of absence from this thread, it's entirely too difficult to try and even discuss the topic as rationally as possible.

Rather than think about what I'm trying to say, people are instead, thinking of ways to just prove me wrong. I'm not trying to make a case from Christianity or religion, I honestly think that evolution has a variety of flaws, and has been desperately held on to for years as a "scientific" way to prove that their is no god. An atheist's dream. So whenever someone brings up "evolution" it's been considered hard-fact, when there are contradictions throughout science, as in other laws contradicting the very theory of evolution.

Yet, in public schools people are taught this from elementary school, and who wouldn't think it was fact ? But the truth is, that it's not a dead fact. If it was, would there be so much controversy ? Evolution is supposed to be logical, yet the people who believe it don't see that if there is so much opposition that it's not a closed case after all ?

Hundreds of years ago we thought the world was flat, everyone knew it, and anyone who said otherwise was insane. Why did they think it was flat ? Well, logically, look straight, that looks pretty flat to me, put a ball on the ground, doesn't roll anywhere unless I move it. However, the fundamental flaw was that they had <i>yet</i> to see the entire world, by bits and pieces they were drawing a very understandable conclusion that the world was flat. But the world is round, we all know that, right ? We've physically observed the round Earth.

This brings me to evolution, all of you right now think I'm a complete bible-thumping lunatic, you think that I'm blantantly ignoring these amazing obvious factual information. I don't disagree with that small evolutionary changes can happen, because it does, it causes variation. I don't disagree that many fossils have many similarities, but its the <i>conclusions</i> we draw from those that I disagree with.

If small evolutionary changes happen, can evolution still be incorrect ? Yes. What about the fossils being very alike in some situations, can evolution still be mistaken ? Yes. Even if you took all of the information for evolution, could they still be drawing the wrong conclusion ? Yes. Your facts can still be true ! But its the conclusion of those facts that I disagree with, even the other observed laws of science disagree with that ! The things that we've proven by observation first hand we are contradicting with something that no one has ever seen on the evolutionary scale that most of you believe in.

So far we have seen a small scope of the truth, we cannot draw an accurate conclusion from just that, until there is not one question that cannot be answered can evolution ever considered being true.

If I named parts of an object, and left you to guess what it is, there's a great chance you will be wrong. Simply, because until we have seen all the pieces of the puzzle we cannot conclusively label something a fact. Until then, evolution cannot be anything more than a theory.

I'm not asking you to give up what you believe in, but think about what I'm trying to say, I'm not trying to convert you, or make you think that God is real. On a logical basis, I honestly believe we do not have enough information, and there is so much lacking from the big picture that I cannot even consider evolution to be true.

And if you can't do that, I have one last request, that you wouldn't critisize people who have differing opinions, and it's foolish to think someone is stupid because in all honesty, you might find out you're wrong, and once you think about all those people you got frustrated with, or got angry with and you begin to see that everything you did was unjustified, you will probably feel pretty bad. So at least for now, be open-minded, because I'm trying to be yet it seemingly impossible to try and talk about the topic.

What good is a forum of ideas if the only ones the door is open to all believe the same thing ?

For now, I'll cease to discuss the topic until a later time.

I also encourage people to look up Pierre Grasse, one of France's best-known scientist, he is the most distinquished French zoologists, editor of 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. He is a very strong critic of Evolution.

Aegeri · August 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 31 2003, 03:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 31 2003, 09:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 31 2003, 12:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> yes, surviving maleria is an advantage, but if it wasnt for maleria, sickle cell would just be another genetic killer </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
And if it wasn't for air, lungs would be useless organs. Your point...? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
that is a good point, but thats not my point

my point is that in places where there is no risk of malaria, sickle cell is just another killer, killing people before they get to 30.

only a certain percentage of the worl is at rick of malaria. outside those zones, sickle cell is <b>not</b> a beneficial mutation  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Exactly, you make an extremely valid (and true) observation. Sickle cell anaemia is only a slective advantage in the presence of malaria, but not in other situations. That is why you see differences between various populations.

Mutations are more than black and white however which you can clearly see, and that was my point <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Marine0I · August 2003

Moultano - Im saying that if creationists had a completely revolutionairy theory like the Big Bang, they wouldnt even get to air it. There can be no opposing viewpoint, its filtered. Much the same way the Catholic church used to go about it - any opposing viewpoint is ridiculed and bashed by the majority.

And I imagine they would say things like - you dont here any evidence against us do you? While making sure that any evidence there is against them never sees the light of day.

And so to end my posting in this thread - I'm with Sirus. There ARE intelligent, methodical and scientifically justified proponents of the creation theory and thus enemies of the evolutionairy theory. And it is extremely common to see them automatically qualified as idiots. From what has been said in this thread by the proponents of evolution, one would be completely justified in thinking that all creation scientists are idiots. Their theories are dismissed - they are the n00bs of the scientific community.

And such is the emotion being shown in this thread that I am now ceasing to post in it. Im trying really hard here to resist the temptation to get on last stab at Aegeri in.... must .... not .... ahhhh

EDIT As Sirus said below, not all opponents of the evolutionairy theory are creationists, and from all accounts they are treated better.

Sirus · August 2003

It's not just creationist scientists. It's non-religious scientist who also disagree with the conclusion of evolution.

Evolution

Comments