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
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
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)