<div class="IPBDescription">In my own state no less.</div> <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/</a>
... you're freaking kidding me right? Teaching students that there are detractors from evolution, that there might be holes in the theory or whatever, is fine by me. Its good for students to learn to question things that they usually take for granted. But teaching Intellegint design? WTH!? There is NO scientific evidence for ID. None. All they have is evidence against evolution, which doesn't do anything to prove their quaint little "theory". I'm thuroughly disgusted.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I'm very glad this will grab the intelligent design discussion out of the other thread and put it in here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
On to the discussion.
This is rediculous and disgusting. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->?You can?t be hypocritical with these kids, teaching them one thing but not another,? said Tome, 43.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its people like this that are causing the US to lose its international scientific edge.
I think I made my case for this in the other thread, but I'll just make a simple point here without retyping the whole thing.
If you teach gravity in physics, you should teach evolution in biology. If you want to teach alternate creation stories in an english, be my guest, but they shoudn't be looked at the same as a scientific theory.
And just so you don't feel this is a Pennsylvanian thing, a school board here in Wisconsin just did a similar thing. It's really too bad.
<!--QuoteBegin-Frikk+Nov 13 2004, 01:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frikk @ Nov 13 2004, 01:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> a school board here in Wisconsin just did a similar thing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ........ I'm going to go get a large, potent drink. Tommarow I'm going to find out who I need to spam about this, then I'm going to be writing a lot of letters. Paper, hand written letters. Then I'm going to start causing trouble...
How does crap like this not cuase an outrage!?
I'm thinking I'll write most of them to the tune that they must also teach the other creation theories, then present them with a giant freaking list with descriptions for many pages. If they don't take me seriously I will sue them for discrimination.
Yeah, day after that happened the school board got a major letter with about 300 promenent scientists, including biologists, geneticists, etc. Including my Genetics Prof. It's in a rather conservative section of the state that even Wisconsin natives rarely have heard of. Clark county I think.
Ok, so it just "allows" the teaching. Not quite as bad as the Penn county, but it's not what you would expect from a country who calls itself enlightened.
Teaching intelligent design is telling the students all about how creationism has been the major belief for thousands of years, it's a history lesson in the middle of biology class.
Kinda dumb, I know, but political correctness is dumb.
The thing is, you can't just say it's theory, the word theory holds a lot of power in todays' scientific world, not only that but natural selection as a theory is so well established in biology and has been used time and time again to make new discoveries and medications (that save the same people's lives who go on to say evolution is bollocks), most biologists I'm sure must just shake their heads at this ignorance.
Well, I cant say I support this. I think evolution is trash of the first order that needs a thorough going over with Occam's Razor - but to get anywhere in highschool or tertiary education you are going to need to know it. If kids are going to reject evolution, they arent going to do so because a teacher presented both options to them - they'll do so because they smell something bad.
Natural selection may be a great theory Forlorn, but evolution itself has saved no one. Actually, I lie. Phylogeny was used to identify the similiarities of Legionnaires disease to another better known disease, giving researchers for a cure a definate starting point and a quick diagnosis and treatment. That, as far as I know, is it. Saying evolution saves people is like saying history saves people.
I majored in Biology in college. One of my professors, who taught microbiology for science majors was a Jesuit priest who also happened to be on Watson & Crick's original team which elucidated the structure of DNA.
*shrug* I always had respect for someone whose faith was augmented-- not challenged-- by scientific discovery.
wow, i thought the article was gonna be about those "evolution is only a theory" stickers on the science books in some southern state but this is even more retarded. in a northern state i might move to in a year or so, crazy.
btw about those stickers. i want to put stickers that say "creationism is only a theory" on all the bibles down there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Roboto+Nov 13 2004, 03:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Roboto @ Nov 13 2004, 03:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i want to put stickers that say "creationism is only a theory" on all the bibles down there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> pwned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Natural selection may be a great theory Forlorn, but evolution itself has saved no one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except if we consider vaccine production, which relies on predicting the evolutionary patterns of the influenza virus, namely how the virus exchanges chunks of DNA between other viruses to create an entirely new serotype. This way of predicting how viruses are evolving has been of great value to many people, as the current flu vaccine can attest to.
In addition to this, many evolutionary principals are put to the test and found to be of great medical value all of the time. It has been demonstrated that something as simple as building a water treatment plant can direct the evolution of pathogens down to a lower pathogenicity. This is a combination of mutations that decrease virulence in the pathogen, for example, cholera toxin A has several known mutations in less virulent <i>Vibrio cholera</i> species than in pandemic isolates from Africa. The reason for this is that building of water treatment facility forces the organsims to be less virulent than normal, so mutations that do so are selected for. This is indeed evolution, and while the treatment plant was never built with that principal in mind, the evolutionary benefits to the human/pathogen interaction are definitely there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I lie. Phylogeny was used to identify the similiarities of Legionnaires disease to another better known disease, giving researchers for a cure a definate starting point and a quick diagnosis and treatment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also try HIV, the relationship between MRSA and VRSA in animals, SARS and many other newly emerged diseases that have appeared over the past 30 or so years. It is also important in the detection and establishment of a virus, particularly because viruses have a relatively restricted set of ways they can do things. For example, phylogeny was used on SARS to determine that it was a positive sense RNA virus which immediately tells you a large amount about the organism, and by determining its relationship with other viruses can give important clues on how to treat it.
Secondly, your example isn't really correct anyway, as epidemiology was used to quickly identify and prevent further outbreaks of Legionnaires disease. It was due to the rapid response of the CDC, particularly in figuring out the mode of transmission of the disease and the fact it made one major outbreak among a group of veterans that made it so obvious. Essentially it was a success of good scientific method and epidemiology rather than anything else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That, as far as I know, is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you need to read more.
Incidently, read on the selection of mutations in toll like receptors in various animals for the control of disease in farm animals and in African buffalo for two other examples of where using the evolution of things like resistance are being employed. Afterwards, mutations in Cholera Toxin subunit A in attenuated <i>Vibrio cholera</i>, and the changes in pathogenicity of <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> as it's an example of an organism causing more problems as it becomes easier to spread.
Then move onto the various theories and (some already practiced) ideas of using the fact pathogens will evolve less/higher resistance based on how easy they are to spread among their host to 'tame' various diseases and make them less of a problem. Starting with Malaria or Cholera is a good idea in this respect.
And yes, I'm still around sometimes, very very rarely these days though. But as anyone knows, I can hardly resist an argument on evolution.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you need to read more.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Clearly. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I'm still around sometimes, very very rarely these days though. But as anyone knows, I can hardly resist an argument on evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is uncanny - have a looksy over at moultano's thread, just this morning I posted saying I regretted that evc arguments were banned and you weren't around. I then went and checked your last post date and saw it was in August, so I figured you were gone for good..... Just so you know - our last EvC inspired me to study science, and I've just finished my first year <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is uncanny - have a looksy over at moultano's thread, just this morning I posted saying I regretted that evc arguments were banned and you weren't around. I then went and checked your last post date and saw it was in August, so I figured you were gone for good..... Just so you know - our last EvC inspired me to study science, and I've just finished my first year <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a very good thing and I'm pleased to hear you've decided to go into a life of science, which is a very rewarding and extremely frustrating area of life to go into (wait until you start doing experiments that take several weeks to do and still fail, like DNA squencing or attempting to solubilise proteins, both nasty). What particular area have you decided to go into out of curiosity?
Myself, I've nearly finished my final honors year and am beginning my ph.D. At the moment I work on how different populations of animals and humans develop an innate natural resistance to common pathogens, like tuberculosis and how to use the development and selection of such resistance to protect natural populations from disease. The current idea is applying to using a unique mutation in toll like receptors of buffalo in Africa that are being devastated by tuberculosis, and by extension, wiping out the lion population. We simply select for the presence of buffalo with this mutation and hopefully make a barrier so that the tuberculosis cannot spread any further north. Hence why you should read a little more widely on the subject of using evolutionary principals to treat or control some diseases, numerous examples are out there.
Incidently, I know I did say that I was gone for good but generally that was only because I got suitably infuriated. It just takes me a while to calm down usually.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The revision was spearheaded by school board member William Buckingham, who heads the board’s curriculum committee.
“I think it’s a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district, to portray one theory over and over,” said Buckingham. “What we wanted was a balanced presentation.”
Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” as a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50 copies were anonymously donated to the high school.
Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian and believes in creationism, “This is not an attempt to impose my views on anyone else,” he said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be "LAFFO" but this is just so sad.
This is like me saying: "I am a man, but I am a woman." In the same sentence or something. It's so absurd. Forget trying to comprehend ID, I don't get this guy.
Can anyone find any other country in the world where this is an issue? Doesn't every religion have a different story of how the world was created? Honestly which intelligent people actually really buy that the world was created in 7 days and a man got pairs of every species of animal onto a giant boat in the middle of lalala crazy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Nov 13 2004, 11:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Nov 13 2004, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can anyone find any other country in the world where this is an issue? Doesn't every religion have a different story of how the world was created? Honestly which intelligent people actually really buy that the world was created in 7 days and a man got pairs of every species of animal onto a giant boat in the middle of lalala crazy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Australia has one of the main creationist hubs, and in fact the site answersingenesis.com and the associated magazine creation, are both Australian based and run. Otherwise no, here in New Zealand we have the odd peep, but ID is almost non-existant in Europe as a major issue or even one anyone pays any attention to. Most people in Europe are fairly accepting of Evolution, which, as I've alluded too, only seems to have problems in America and Australia (but mostly America). Nature constantly laments this fact, as many European scientists have criticised the American education system on this issue several times and it's beginning to make a bit of a mark on American science.
Incidently, it is important to remember that ID rose out of the problem creationists in America faced due to the courts constantly throwing it out, especially when they were defeated in 1982 when Judge Overton rejected "creation science". As a direct result of this, intelligent design was dressed up to find a way to skirt around this issue, and attempt to sneak creationism into the classroom by making a 'theory' that didn't involve the mention of the word God, or any science for that matter, but that is a different story. Intelligent design is simply a regurgitation of William Paleys ideas from the early 1800's and just as advanced.
1. There is a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. As of yet, I have seen 0 evidence of macro evolution. Could someone please show me some?
2. How exactly did life come about from non-life? If everything came from a big explosion, how did the first "life" form?
Explain these in a satisfactory way - showing specific examples, and you might make a "believer" out of me.
A simple case for intelegent design - If someone builds a brick wall 2000 years ago, and we find it today, we say "look, someone built this wall". DNA is much more complex than that wall, and yet we continue to say "look, this DNA happened by chance". To me that sounds like "hey, what a neat wall - good thing that morter happened to fall between the bricks so that we can see it today! How lucky!"
Of course, the wall argument is absurd - but then again, so is evolution.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. There is a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. As of yet, I have seen 0 evidence of macro evolution. Could someone please show me some?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no difference actually, all you've done is made up two meaningless terms that ultimately don't actually say anything. Evolution is just that, evolution, there is no such rubbish as micro and macro evolution, that is the first thing you got wrong. Secondly, there is a large amount of evidence for it, on both genetic terms and in larger whole organism terms. The fossil record of birds, which has an almost complete transition from a small feathered reptile to a more modern looking bird, and then to something that very closely resembles birds is well documented. There are, as a general rule, many examples of this all over the scientific literature, museums and more. Just go and have a look for whatever particular example you want.
Some links to <i>papers</i> on the subject, these are abstracts because full papers require you to be subscribed, which I doubt many here are.
There is a lot more, but there is well demonstrated and documented evidence for this process.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. How exactly did life come about from non-life? If everything came from a big explosion, how did the first "life" form? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, define a non-living organism and your question might actually have some form of relevance. Generally, you would require the formation of self-replicative chemical compounds rather than something 'alive' as opposed to non-replicative compounds. RNA has already been proposed for just such a chemical as it is simple in structure, is capable of catalysing its own synthesis (and still does), is able to have catalytic properties and encode information, all of which is required for biological life to have arisen from. Experimentation with RNA has demonstrated that it can in fact 'evolve' and that you will find many different 'species' of RNA when doing such experiments. Especially note worthy is the ability of RNA to have selectable traits and even have normal environmental pressures, like stability to acidic conditions, applied to it like normal organisms.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain these in a satisfactory way - showing specific examples, and you might make a "believer" out of me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't 'believe' in Evolution because there is nothing to believe in, you either accept the mountains of evidence for it or you don't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A simple case for intelegent design - If someone builds a brick wall 2000 years ago, and we find it today, we say "look, someone built this wall". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I myself wouldn't call that an argument, I would say it's a logical fallacy usually described as a strawman, because it fails to account for the properties of living organisms that enable them to evolve. For example, a wall built 2000 years ago, that is blasted apart by the elements, wind and the like is no longer a wall, nor can it perpetuate that it is a wall. It is more or less an ex-wall and won't do anything else because it is not able to replicate or similar.
Using such an argument is similar to the fallacy of comparing a man made mechanical machine, such as a car engine, to a living organisms nano-machine such as the flagellum, which being from a living organism is subject to change.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA is much more complex than that wall, and yet we continue to say "look, this DNA happened by chance". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, because DNA has the ability to change and alter itself, plus it can do so fairly deliberately. For example, retroviral genomes are actually capable of mutating at extremely rapid rates, changing many aspects of their DNA completely at random yet are able to rapidly product novel phenotypes such as new receptors and importantly resistance mechanisms to new anti-viral drugs: Completely by chance. <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> has developed entirely new enzymes, metabolic pathways and many more things that enable it to live on anti-septics and detergeants, which is an impressive feat for a bacterium. And again, this has been done at random.
Finally, nototheniods survive in sub-freezing waters, cold enough to freeze the fluids in their bodies, by producing an anti-freeze protein. As it turns out, this relatively complex protein is produced by simple random chance, by a gene duplication of a digestive enzyme that has been heavily altered to incorporate more glycines. This has been proven by finding fish with a halfway chimeric antifreeze protein, half glycine and still retaining some of the aspects of the original digestive enzyme.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To me that sounds like "hey, what a neat wall - good thing that morter happened to fall between the bricks so that we can see it today! How lucky!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you make a strawman instead of any real argument with any substance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the wall argument is absurd - but then again, so is evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least you are capable of acknowledging that you have made a fallacious strawman argument, which is about all you have managed to demonstrate.
Of course, the wall argument is absurd - but then again, so is evolution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <b><i>Intelligent Design</i></b>.
To me, it sounds more like an excuse to force the guy's views on everyone else, despite his claim that he isn't. Most of the article, I found funny. And I weep for those that I laugh at.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Nov 13 2004, 12:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Nov 13 2004, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, 2 comments here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My initial thought upon reading this: "the depth of your destruction will be directly proportional to how much time and energy Aegeri has. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->"
Comments
On to the discussion.
This is rediculous and disgusting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->?You can?t be hypocritical with these kids, teaching them one thing but not another,? said Tome, 43.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its people like this that are causing the US to lose its international scientific edge.
If you teach gravity in physics, you should teach evolution in biology. If you want to teach alternate creation stories in an english, be my guest, but they shoudn't be looked at the same as a scientific theory.
And just so you don't feel this is a Pennsylvanian thing, a school board here in Wisconsin just did a similar thing. It's really too bad.
........
I'm going to go get a large, potent drink. Tommarow I'm going to find out who I need to spam about this, then I'm going to be writing a lot of letters. Paper, hand written letters. Then I'm going to start causing trouble...
How does crap like this not cuase an outrage!?
I'm thinking I'll write most of them to the tune that they must also teach the other creation theories, then present them with a giant freaking list with descriptions for many pages. If they don't take me seriously I will sue them for discrimination.
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=232560' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=232560</a>
Ok, so it just "allows" the teaching. Not quite as bad as the Penn county, but it's not what you would expect from a country who calls itself enlightened.
Kinda dumb, I know, but political correctness is dumb.
The thing is, you can't just say it's theory, the word theory holds a lot of power in todays' scientific world, not only that but natural selection as a theory is so well established in biology and has been used time and time again to make new discoveries and medications (that save the same people's lives who go on to say evolution is bollocks), most biologists I'm sure must just shake their heads at this ignorance.
Natural selection may be a great theory Forlorn, but evolution itself has saved no one. Actually, I lie. Phylogeny was used to identify the similiarities of Legionnaires disease to another better known disease, giving researchers for a cure a definate starting point and a quick diagnosis and treatment. That, as far as I know, is it. Saying evolution saves people is like saying history saves people.
*shrug* I always had respect for someone whose faith was augmented-- not challenged-- by scientific discovery.
btw about those stickers. i want to put stickers that say "creationism is only a theory" on all the bibles down there.
pwned.
Except if we consider vaccine production, which relies on predicting the evolutionary patterns of the influenza virus, namely how the virus exchanges chunks of DNA between other viruses to create an entirely new serotype. This way of predicting how viruses are evolving has been of great value to many people, as the current flu vaccine can attest to.
In addition to this, many evolutionary principals are put to the test and found to be of great medical value all of the time. It has been demonstrated that something as simple as building a water treatment plant can direct the evolution of pathogens down to a lower pathogenicity. This is a combination of mutations that decrease virulence in the pathogen, for example, cholera toxin A has several known mutations in less virulent <i>Vibrio cholera</i> species than in pandemic isolates from Africa. The reason for this is that building of water treatment facility forces the organsims to be less virulent than normal, so mutations that do so are selected for. This is indeed evolution, and while the treatment plant was never built with that principal in mind, the evolutionary benefits to the human/pathogen interaction are definitely there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I lie. Phylogeny was used to identify the similiarities of Legionnaires disease to another better known disease, giving researchers for a cure a definate starting point and a quick diagnosis and treatment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also try HIV, the relationship between MRSA and VRSA in animals, SARS and many other newly emerged diseases that have appeared over the past 30 or so years. It is also important in the detection and establishment of a virus, particularly because viruses have a relatively restricted set of ways they can do things. For example, phylogeny was used on SARS to determine that it was a positive sense RNA virus which immediately tells you a large amount about the organism, and by determining its relationship with other viruses can give important clues on how to treat it.
Secondly, your example isn't really correct anyway, as epidemiology was used to quickly identify and prevent further outbreaks of Legionnaires disease. It was due to the rapid response of the CDC, particularly in figuring out the mode of transmission of the disease and the fact it made one major outbreak among a group of veterans that made it so obvious. Essentially it was a success of good scientific method and epidemiology rather than anything else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That, as far as I know, is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you need to read more.
Incidently, read on the selection of mutations in toll like receptors in various animals for the control of disease in farm animals and in African buffalo for two other examples of where using the evolution of things like resistance are being employed. Afterwards, mutations in Cholera Toxin subunit A in attenuated <i>Vibrio cholera</i>, and the changes in pathogenicity of <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> as it's an example of an organism causing more problems as it becomes easier to spread.
Then move onto the various theories and (some already practiced) ideas of using the fact pathogens will evolve less/higher resistance based on how easy they are to spread among their host to 'tame' various diseases and make them less of a problem. Starting with Malaria or Cholera is a good idea in this respect.
And yes, I'm still around sometimes, very very rarely these days though. But as anyone knows, I can hardly resist an argument on evolution.
Clearly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I'm still around sometimes, very very rarely these days though. But as anyone knows, I can hardly resist an argument on evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is uncanny - have a looksy over at moultano's thread, just this morning I posted saying I regretted that evc arguments were banned and you weren't around. I then went and checked your last post date and saw it was in August, so I figured you were gone for good..... Just so you know - our last EvC inspired me to study science, and I've just finished my first year <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That is a very good thing and I'm pleased to hear you've decided to go into a life of science, which is a very rewarding and extremely frustrating area of life to go into (wait until you start doing experiments that take several weeks to do and still fail, like DNA squencing or attempting to solubilise proteins, both nasty). What particular area have you decided to go into out of curiosity?
Myself, I've nearly finished my final honors year and am beginning my ph.D. At the moment I work on how different populations of animals and humans develop an innate natural resistance to common pathogens, like tuberculosis and how to use the development and selection of such resistance to protect natural populations from disease. The current idea is applying to using a unique mutation in toll like receptors of buffalo in Africa that are being devastated by tuberculosis, and by extension, wiping out the lion population. We simply select for the presence of buffalo with this mutation and hopefully make a barrier so that the tuberculosis cannot spread any further north. Hence why you should read a little more widely on the subject of using evolutionary principals to treat or control some diseases, numerous examples are out there.
Incidently, I know I did say that I was gone for good but generally that was only because I got suitably infuriated. It just takes me a while to calm down usually.
“I think it’s a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district, to portray one theory over and over,” said Buckingham. “What we wanted was a balanced presentation.”
Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” as a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50 copies were anonymously donated to the high school.
Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian and believes in creationism, “This is not an attempt to impose my views on anyone else,” he said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be "LAFFO" but this is just so sad.
This is like me saying:
"I am a man, but I am a woman." In the same sentence or something. It's so absurd. Forget trying to comprehend ID, I don't get this guy.
Australia has one of the main creationist hubs, and in fact the site answersingenesis.com and the associated magazine creation, are both Australian based and run. Otherwise no, here in New Zealand we have the odd peep, but ID is almost non-existant in Europe as a major issue or even one anyone pays any attention to. Most people in Europe are fairly accepting of Evolution, which, as I've alluded too, only seems to have problems in America and Australia (but mostly America). Nature constantly laments this fact, as many European scientists have criticised the American education system on this issue several times and it's beginning to make a bit of a mark on American science.
Incidently, it is important to remember that ID rose out of the problem creationists in America faced due to the courts constantly throwing it out, especially when they were defeated in 1982 when Judge Overton rejected "creation science". As a direct result of this, intelligent design was dressed up to find a way to skirt around this issue, and attempt to sneak creationism into the classroom by making a 'theory' that didn't involve the mention of the word God, or any science for that matter, but that is a different story. Intelligent design is simply a regurgitation of William Paleys ideas from the early 1800's and just as advanced.
1. There is a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. As of yet, I have seen 0 evidence of macro evolution. Could someone please show me some?
2. How exactly did life come about from non-life? If everything came from a big explosion, how did the first "life" form?
Explain these in a satisfactory way - showing specific examples, and you might make a "believer" out of me.
A simple case for intelegent design - If someone builds a brick wall 2000 years ago, and we find it today, we say "look, someone built this wall". DNA is much more complex than that wall, and yet we continue to say "look, this DNA happened by chance". To me that sounds like "hey, what a neat wall - good thing that morter happened to fall between the bricks so that we can see it today! How lucky!"
Of course, the wall argument is absurd - but then again, so is evolution.
1. There is a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. As of yet, I have seen 0 evidence of macro evolution. Could someone please show me some?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no difference actually, all you've done is made up two meaningless terms that ultimately don't actually say anything. Evolution is just that, evolution, there is no such rubbish as micro and macro evolution, that is the first thing you got wrong. Secondly, there is a large amount of evidence for it, on both genetic terms and in larger whole organism terms. The fossil record of birds, which has an almost complete transition from a small feathered reptile to a more modern looking bird, and then to something that very closely resembles birds is well documented. There are, as a general rule, many examples of this all over the scientific literature, museums and more. Just go and have a look for whatever particular example you want.
Some links to <i>papers</i> on the subject, these are abstracts because full papers require you to be subscribed, which I doubt many here are.
<a href='http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v382/n6590/abs/382442a0.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf...s/382442a0.html</a>
<a href='http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7010/abs/nature02898_fs.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf...re02898_fs.html</a>
<a href='http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393753a0_fs.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf...93753a0_fs.html</a>
There is a lot more, but there is well demonstrated and documented evidence for this process.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. How exactly did life come about from non-life? If everything came from a big explosion, how did the first "life" form? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, define a non-living organism and your question might actually have some form of relevance. Generally, you would require the formation of self-replicative chemical compounds rather than something 'alive' as opposed to non-replicative compounds. RNA has already been proposed for just such a chemical as it is simple in structure, is capable of catalysing its own synthesis (and still does), is able to have catalytic properties and encode information, all of which is required for biological life to have arisen from. Experimentation with RNA has demonstrated that it can in fact 'evolve' and that you will find many different 'species' of RNA when doing such experiments. Especially note worthy is the ability of RNA to have selectable traits and even have normal environmental pressures, like stability to acidic conditions, applied to it like normal organisms.
<a href='http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6894/abs/418214a_fs.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf...418214a_fs.html</a>
<a href='http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v381/n6581/abs/381442a0.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf...s/381442a0.html</a>
<a href='http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v36/n1/abs/ng1275.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf...abs/ng1275.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain these in a satisfactory way - showing specific examples, and you might make a "believer" out of me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't 'believe' in Evolution because there is nothing to believe in, you either accept the mountains of evidence for it or you don't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A simple case for intelegent design - If someone builds a brick wall 2000 years ago, and we find it today, we say "look, someone built this wall". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I myself wouldn't call that an argument, I would say it's a logical fallacy usually described as a strawman, because it fails to account for the properties of living organisms that enable them to evolve. For example, a wall built 2000 years ago, that is blasted apart by the elements, wind and the like is no longer a wall, nor can it perpetuate that it is a wall. It is more or less an ex-wall and won't do anything else because it is not able to replicate or similar.
Using such an argument is similar to the fallacy of comparing a man made mechanical machine, such as a car engine, to a living organisms nano-machine such as the flagellum, which being from a living organism is subject to change.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA is much more complex than that wall, and yet we continue to say "look, this DNA happened by chance". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, because DNA has the ability to change and alter itself, plus it can do so fairly deliberately. For example, retroviral genomes are actually capable of mutating at extremely rapid rates, changing many aspects of their DNA completely at random yet are able to rapidly product novel phenotypes such as new receptors and importantly resistance mechanisms to new anti-viral drugs: Completely by chance. <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> has developed entirely new enzymes, metabolic pathways and many more things that enable it to live on anti-septics and detergeants, which is an impressive feat for a bacterium. And again, this has been done at random.
Finally, nototheniods survive in sub-freezing waters, cold enough to freeze the fluids in their bodies, by producing an anti-freeze protein. As it turns out, this relatively complex protein is produced by simple random chance, by a gene duplication of a digestive enzyme that has been heavily altered to incorporate more glycines. This has been proven by finding fish with a halfway chimeric antifreeze protein, half glycine and still retaining some of the aspects of the original digestive enzyme.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To me that sounds like "hey, what a neat wall - good thing that morter happened to fall between the bricks so that we can see it today! How lucky!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you make a strawman instead of any real argument with any substance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the wall argument is absurd - but then again, so is evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least you are capable of acknowledging that you have made a fallacious strawman argument, which is about all you have managed to demonstrate.
Of course, the wall argument is absurd - but then again, so is evolution.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b><i>Intelligent Design</i></b>.
To me, it sounds more like an excuse to force the guy's views on everyone else, despite his claim that he isn't. Most of the article, I found funny. And I weep for those that I laugh at.
My initial thought upon reading this:
"the depth of your destruction will be directly proportional to how much time and energy Aegeri has. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->"
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638&view=findpost&p=718892' target='_blank'>Addendum #1.</a>
Sorry, guys, but I don't want to have to clean up the mess from this one.
But anyone else find it funny that 40-some-odd years ago, just the opposite of this debate was going on?