It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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?
Do you want a world where the scientific community becomes omniscient beings with every answer, when not every answer is correct or true?
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 enough to disagree. Does it bother you to put the scientific community under the microscope?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Myelin decreases capacitance across the cell membrane, and increases electrical resistance.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
You keep asking "Why can't they?" Well, do they?
Small variations are not massive changes.
The struggle for existence by competition has now been proven wrong. And he states all of this in the metaphorical sense.
A species can only adapt to its natural environment, not the other way. They can survive but never become naturalized.
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
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.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
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?
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.