Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

page: 29
12
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



Yes, I know the discussion about Vitamin D. But that answer you just gave gives no answer for people with Multiple Sclerosis, our light skin does not provide the necessary function to absorb Vitamin D. As you can say that is what light skin is for, then please, tell me why people have MS?


I'm sorry to hear you have MS, so does my sister.

But Vitamin D is not a magic bullet that absolutely prevents MS. No one has claimed that. I expect you have read far more literature on the subject than I, but the most straightforward discussion I have read is:

Overcoming Multiple Sclerosis: Sunlight and Vitamin D where we find this quote:


A study from Tasmania looked at the rates of MS and malignant melanoma in each of the major cities of the states of Australia and compared them with the amount of sunlight in the area. This study showed that the correlation between low ultraviolet radiation and MS was considerably stronger than that between high UV and melanoma. Good experimental work from Tasmania has shown that adequate sun exposure, particularly in winter, between the ages of 6 to 15 especially, reduced the risk of developing MS in later life by about two thirds.


So sunlight for vitamin D is important, but it is not guaranteed; the risk is reduced not eliminated. Futhermore, the risk from melanoma from too much sunlight is less than the risk of MS from too little sunlight. From an evolutionary point of view, this is a strong benefit for light skin in northern climes.



Listen, scientists even have trouble coming to terms with formerly held a priori doesn't come true in the lab. I've already shown examples of that. But are you asking that I simply accept a particular scientific view, because that's what you would like for the world? A world in which children aren't allowed to ask questions or people treat the scientific community with kid gloves, to pat scientists on the head and stoke their egos?


I'm not sure where this came from. Scientists do not 'have trouble coming to terms' with new results in the lab - that is their bread and butter - they get excited over new results. Scientists are very careful about claiming new results as breakthrough however. Results need to be confirmed, experiments repeated by others, possibility of mistakes eliminated, controls put in place to ensure the results are not illusions.



Do you want a world where the scientific community becomes omniscient beings with every answer, when not every answer is correct or true?


Of course not. There is only one place where you will find that attitude, and that is in the fundamental faith traditions, not in the science lab.



You do seem to be very disgruntled with the articles that I post and instead of addressing the disagreements among scientists, you want to believe that I don't know anything.


I understand that you might be disappointed to find that your understanding of evolution is much less than you had thought. I understand that are drawn you to ideas that seem to support your faith with science. But bad science does not support anything.

Thousands of scientists have no problem reconciling their faith with good science - they are not incompatible. Science will never prove or disprove God, it isn't built to answer that question. When you find a scientist who claims to have found that proof, like Dembski, it is a sure sign that he/she is doing bad science.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am disgruntled about anything what-so-ever. Indeed, I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts, research my replies, and see other folks responses. I hope you can see past the 'easy' answers and continue to look into the wonderful world around us and how evolution has made that world so diverse.

Edit: I do see that my wording was a bit sharp about the cell being an open system. I was rather 'disgruntled' about that I suppose. But you claimed to understand closed system versus open system, and then asked a question that proved you didn't understand it at all. I was trying to 'shock' you a bit. Maybe it was the wrong tack, but I think the discussion was going nowhere without it.



I understand enough to disagree. Does it bother you to put the scientific community under the microscope?


Of course not. The scientific community puts itself under the microscope much more than we can at this little blog.

edit on 21/9/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Loss-of-Function Mutations in APOC3, Triglycerides, and Coronary Disease

A mutation that lower heart attack risk by 40 %



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, I know the discussion about Vitamin D. But that answer you just gave gives no answer for people with Multiple Sclerosis, our light skin does not provide the necessary function to absorb Vitamin D. As you can say that is what light skin is for, then please, tell me why people have MS? Remember, I am a Caucasian female of Northern European and Sephardi ancestry, but I am still Caucasian with very light skin. I have heard the Vitamin D debate for a long time since I was diagnosed. My light skin apparently isn't sufficient. For every pro, there's a con when it comes to biological answers.


If the development of MS was dependent on just 'light skin' then there'd be a great many more people with the condition today. While there have been reported links between the two, that does not mean that it (a lack of V-D) is the cause.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Now see, this is a very good dialogue.

I am sorry your sister has MS, I was just prescribed the oral medication so I will see how that goes. When I was first diagnosed all we had were the four. I hated taking injections all the time, so the oral medication might be just what will work for me.

You said




Thousands of scientists have no problem reconciling their faith with good science - they are not incompatible. Science will never prove or disprove God, it isn't built to answer that question. When you find a scientist who claims to have found that proof, like Dembski, it is a sure sign that he/she is doing bad science.


I agree, that's why we have faith, and then looking around at what we see, I see the evidence everywhere, because I know God isn't a physical being like we are. The world is amazing to me. I just saw a documentary about diatoms in low strata and was amazed so much at the geometric patterns. To me, this simply can't be a coincidence. Simply amazing.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Not only is it not dependent on light skin, there are some extreme Northern European people who actually have genetic resistance or immunity to MS.one example of this is in Northern Ireland which has some high rates of MS compared to the rest of Ireland. Northern Ireland traditionally has been home to many Scottish émigrés wheas the rest of the isle is made up of those with high percentage of true Irish lineage.

However,I do have to say that there is a very strong correlation between light skin, vitamin D absorption and incidence of MS. Northern Europeans have roughly double the numbers of individuals with MS and it seems to be that the farther away from the equator one lives or ones ancestors are from, the instances of MS seem to rise. While the correlation looks strong on paper there are other factors to consider.

We have to keep in mind that it still needs more study and one factor that researchers have noted is that the lower incidences of MS in Africa for example may be due to the fact that medical care is less accessible and therefore MS is very much under reported in those areas so its very difficult to say with any degree of certainty whether or not the vitamin D link is realistic no matter how good it looks initially.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Prezbo369

Not only is it not dependent on light skin, there are some extreme Northern European people who actually have genetic resistance or immunity to MS.one example of this is in Northern Ireland which has some high rates of MS compared to the rest of Ireland. Northern Ireland traditionally has been home to many Scottish émigrés wheas the rest of the isle is made up of those with high percentage of true Irish lineage.

However,I do have to say that there is a very strong correlation between light skin, vitamin D absorption and incidence of MS. Northern Europeans have roughly double the numbers of individuals with MS and it seems to be that the farther away from the equator one lives or ones ancestors are from, the instances of MS seem to rise. While the correlation looks strong on paper there are other factors to consider.

We have to keep in mind that it still needs more study and one factor that researchers have noted is that the lower incidences of MS in Africa for example may be due to the fact that medical care is less accessible and therefore MS is very much under reported in those areas so its very difficult to say with any degree of certainty whether or not the vitamin D link is realistic no matter how good it looks initially.


I agree because the Irish were known to be cattle breeders and drank milk as well. Sometimes it is called "The Irish Curse" but the condition called Haemochromatosis is prevalent also among the Irish.

There may very well people in Africa that have MS and I do know of a gentleman from Algeria that has it. Not only that, there seems to be people in China with it as well. As they say, there's no rhyme nor reason when it comes to MS.

Myelin is an insulating fat, that protects from overloads of electricity. I once proposed this to my first neurologist but he didn't want to hear. Well, my theory was that for whatever reason, the nerve that was transmitting the electrical charge was burning the myelin from the inside out, like a hot dog with an electrical wire in it. There may be some higher charges or lower resistance in the myelin that caused this.

I know that I have a lower resistance to electricity. When I worked at the job where we made computer resistors, as a joke we would test our own resistance in the calibrated measuring devices. Mine was consistently very low in resistance. I thought there must be something to that, because of all the people I worked with there, I am the only one I know that has MS.

I believe that there is an odd electrical fluctuation in my body and this causes the myelin to be burned from the inside out. Wikipedia says this...


Myelin decreases capacitance across the cell membrane, and increases electrical resistance.
If the resistance is lowered already in me, and the myelin is no longer acting as the protection against electrical impulses, then there must be something in my body that causes electrical fluctuations.

I have Tachycardia, which is a high heart rate, and there is no reason for this. I have been taking medication to lower this, and it seems to have done even if it is just a tiny bit slower. I had such a high level of static discharge in my body that I kept destroying the information on the old floppy disks when we were learning about computers in high school. The teacher actually had me ground myself before sitting at the computer.

That is my theory, fluctuating electrical impulses and a lowered resistance causes the myelin to be destroyed from the inside.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I agree because the Irish were known to be cattle breeders and drank milk as well. Sometimes it is called "The Irish Curse" but the condition called Haemochromatosis is prevalent also among the Irish.


In all fairness, MS isn't that prevalent in people of Eire descent, it's far more prevalent in Northern Ireland which has a lot more Scottish and British from forced emigration over the centuries.


There may very well people in Africa that have MS and I do know of a gentleman from Algeria that has it. Not only that, there seems to be people in China with it as well. As they say, there's no rhyme nor reason when it comes to MS.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I agree because the Irish were known to be cattle breeders and drank milk as well. Sometimes it is called "The Irish Curse" but the condition called Haemochromatosis is prevalent also among the Irish.


In all fairness, MS isn't that prevalent in people of Eire descent, it's far more prevalent in Northern Ireland which has a lot more Scottish and British from forced emigration over the centuries.


There may very well people in Africa that have MS and I do know of a gentleman from Algeria that has it. Not only that, there seems to be people in China with it as well. As they say, there's no rhyme nor reason when it comes to MS.



It would be very hard to tell in mine as I have ancestry from a lot of European countries. I am very European admixed, but I do have some Irish ancestry mixed in there.

It may very well be that the Irish are very admixed themselves. There were four major migrations into Ireland that were recorded.

Here is a world map, and it seems that Canada has an extremely high rate, but it could be because Canada has a much lower population and Canada considers itself less of a melting pot than the United States.

Map of MS

Even Japan has reported cases of MS, along with Brazil and Argentina, but I would guess that has to do with German immigration. Perhaps it shows up in populations of Germanic descent? When I say Germanic, I don't mean Germany proper, some people get confused on that one. If the Scots and British have that high prevalence in Northern Ireland, then it could be a Saxon mutation. (When I say Saxon, I mean those from Saxonland). Why not trace the mutation of MS across the globe like one would for YDNA or mtDNA?

I know Askenazi Jews with MS, but I know among the Amish there are other diseases that are the result of inbreeding. Amish are relatively highly Germanic descent.

In Zimbabwe and South Africa there are still cases of MS, even if it is lower. But Haemochromatosis is similar to MS, but in that condition, one has higher amounts of metal. MS isn't always just capitalized, in a lot of sources it is just multiple sclerosis, meaning many scars. And now it is apparent that Orkney Islands have the highest prevalence, so now one theory is that the Vikings caused it....


Australia is just under the United States in prevalence, yet Australia's history is a British penal colony. If it were a case of British ancestry causing this, then Australia should have a higher rate. But Morocco, that had at one time a Scottish slave colony and a lot of Scots were slaves in Morocco at one time, then there should also be higher rates in other places where the Scots were at. It doesn't seem prevalent in the Caribbean, where there were also Scots and Irish as slaves.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You keep asking "Why can't they?" Well, do they?


Of course they do. There is no logical reason why they wouldn't.

If you live in an area with heavy rain fall and you leave a bucket outside, logic would state that it will eventually fill up with water. You don't need to be there to witness every drop of rain land in the bucket to understand that the bucket will go from empty to full given enough rainfall.

Genetic mutations are the same way. It's an obvious logical inference based on facts. No human can literally sit there and watch a population for a million years. It is not possible. This is why long term evolution is observed in other ways. Remember an observation in science, doesn't always mean directly watching or supervising.

If you wish to suggest that the mutations cannot add up over time, then you need to demonstrate WHY.


Small variations are not massive changes.


Of course they aren't, and your long winded tangent about Darwin has nothing to do with it. Small changes are not massive changes. Evolution is practically founded on that concept. Small changes adding up over millions of years CAN become massive changes. Darwin's thoughts on the accuracy of his theory and "selective breeding" are completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about evolution as it is today, not 150 years ago.

So again, please stop going off on unrelated tangents and answer my questions. I asked about the Darwin hypothesis and what surrounding hypotheses it proved wrong. You didn't answer. I asked why mutations cannot add up over time. You didn't answer. Please stop diverting. Answer my questions directly. It's a common courtesy that when somebody goes out of there way to explain something, to at least address the substance in their post. Don't just pretend they didn't say it and move on to something else.


The struggle for existence by competition has now been proven wrong. And he states all of this in the metaphorical sense.


Absolutely 100% false. A lesser known hypothesis about competition within groups was proven wrong, not the fact of competition for survival itself!


A species can only adapt to its natural environment, not the other way. They can survive but never become naturalized.

How on earth do you get that conclusion from the passage you quoted? He was referring to certain plants, not ALL plants. Competition is part of evolution, it's not JUST about the climate, and never has been. Darwin was saying that some plants may be adapted to a certain climate but would still fail due to other competition that they couldn't overcome. What is the issue?

edit on 23-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

For the survival theory, already been posted with a link that disproves survival and competition.

As far as the rain bucket goes, the bucket didn't put itself there and it could fill up in one big rainfall. If you are waiting for this to happen over a long time, there will be evaporation. And that is assuming the bucket doesn't have a hole in it. Suppose the hole wasn't observed by you, because you didn't pick it up to look? Well, no full bucket. We can't just not consider variables.

You do realize that I have only used links for papers and abstracts to experiments, right? It's really up to you if you want to accept or reject experiments, but you can't say you trust all science and then only take the ones you like. That's kind of hypocritical and what you accuse us of. It's one thing to say that theories are acceptable if you base them in science, but it's another to toss out an experiment because it doesn't fit the scenario. Which is more important, the theory or the experiment?

From City University of New York with the latest from their own researchers (and I gave a link for another one that was just two hours old at the time of posting)


In a study that could alter traditional notions in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology, three City College of New York researchers present results indicating that competition between two species can lead to the geographic isolation of one of them


So the traditional view can change, but it's up to you whether or not you want to agree with the traditional or move forward.


This study counters traditional notions in ecology that do not consider the possibility that geographic isolation (= “allopatry”) could be promoted by biotic interactions (competition, predation/parasitism, mutualism, etc.).

“Geographic isolation has profound consequences for the long-term viability of a population and for its genetic evolution, making this finding noteworthy and important,” said Dr. Anderson, Professor in City College’s Biology Department.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

You really do hear what you want to hear. Absolutely NOTHING in that link "disproves survival and competition". The fact that you walked away with that impression demonstrates you do not understand the sources you read.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I SAID "that I provided in an earlier post". I don't think I have to rehash every link. That would be a huge waste of time. You can choose to read the links, as some do, and then argue their science.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Thank you for being more direct in your response. It really does make this discussion much more productive when we discuss a topic fully before moving to the next one.



originally posted by: WarminIndy
For the survival theory, already been posted with a link that disproves survival and competition.

Myself and others have already explained that the only thing disproven was the idea that closer related species groups have less competition amongst themselves than creatures that are not as closely related. You didn't disprove survival and competition as a whole and you didn't respond to anybody's rebuttal of your unrelated conclusion.


As far as the rain bucket goes, the bucket didn't put itself there and it could fill up in one big rainfall. If you are waiting for this to happen over a long time, there will be evaporation. And that is assuming the bucket doesn't have a hole in it. Suppose the hole wasn't observed by you, because you didn't pick it up to look? Well, no full bucket. We can't just not consider variables.

The point was that you don't need to witness the bucket fill up to realize that it did and was caused by the rain drops accumulating, regardless of how long it takes. You are hung up on the idea that since we can't directly monitor long term evolution that it cannot happen. I'm still waiting for a logical reason why you believe that small changes cannot add up. 99% of the species alive today were not around 70-100 million years ago. If not evolution, then what?


You do realize that I have only used links for papers and abstracts to experiments, right? It's really up to you if you want to accept or reject experiments, but you can't say you trust all science and then only take the ones you like. That's kind of hypocritical and what you accuse us of. It's one thing to say that theories are acceptable if you base them in science, but it's another to toss out an experiment because it doesn't fit the scenario. Which is more important, the theory or the experiment?


I have no issues at all with the experiments and research papers. I have issues with YOUR CONCLUSIONS derived from them. Very often your conclusions do not agree with theirs. You are quote mining certain studies for key catch phrases rather than analyzing the results of the experiments and what they mean. Survival via competition has not been proven wrong and you keep quoting papers that have nothing to do with your conclusion.

For example:


In a study that could alter traditional notions in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology, three City College of New York researchers present results indicating that competition between two species can lead to the geographic isolation of one of them


"researchers present results indicating that COMPETITION between 2 species can lead to isolation."

Please explain how this debunks competition for survival as a whole. Your link has absolutely nothing to do with your claim. How does competition leading to isolation make survival and competition wrong completely, when competition is the primary factor that leads to the isolation in the first place? Furthermore, this is a single study done on a single species, it's not true for every species, it's just another factor involved in the complex process of natural selection.


So the traditional view can change, but it's up to you whether or not you want to agree with the traditional or move forward.

And what has changed, specifically? (read on below)


This study counters traditional notions in ecology that do not consider the possibility that geographic isolation (= “allopatry”) could be promoted by biotic interactions (competition, predation/parasitism, mutualism, etc.).

“Geographic isolation has profound consequences for the long-term viability of a population and for its genetic evolution, making this finding noteworthy and important,” said Dr. Anderson, Professor in City College’s Biology Department.


How does this debunk competition for survival? Maybe I'm not seeing it. I read the article 3 times and nothing even remotely hints at this premise being wrong. Competition causes SOME population groups to be isolated from others, and we all know that isolated species will evolve separately from other groups depending on the environment. If anything this supports competition for survival. It's exactly what causes the isolation. All it's saying is that we figured out more factors involved in evolution, not that competition is wrong.

edit on 24-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join