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.

 

Creation or Evolution, which is more important?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0992
Lots of things in biology are wrong... we discover this everyday.


Really, humor me name one. Considering the enormously broad range of disciplines within biology find one thing that has been found as absolutely wrong after passing a peer reviewed study.

A list like this could get long very quickly.

Perhaps you didn't see this article that came out last year.


John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.

If you really want an extensive list, we can do that too.



Falsification is very difficult. No one can simply publish a paper or book and make it part of an existing theory. All ideas go through a rigorous peer review process before any merit can be given to new concepts. It is then opened to the whole world for comment before there is any acceptance in any field of science. There are hundreds of thousands of independent studies and peer reviews globally that would win a noble prize to prove any validated theory wrong.

You obviously don't understand the process of peer review. Often times this 'rigorous' process amounts to review by one or two other scientists who have a whole stack of stuff they're reviewing in addition to their own research. Most scientists don't operate on the 'theory' level, and aren't out to prove things wrong. For the most part they are locked into their own specific sub-category of their sub-discipline, and don't really think about the big picture. Rocking the boat is no way to ensure future funding or future publication. In fact, history has demonstrated that articles that are true but go against popular theories are disproportionately rejected. We can go through an extensive list here too if necessary.


The ToE is made of correct disciplines and theories of biology. Many of those disciplines and theories are also used in medicine. If an error is made within any one of those disciplines it does not go up the ladder to disrupt the discipline itself and certainly not up to any grouping of those disciplines like ToE or Medicine

What exactly is a 'correct discipline.' We scientists don't necessarily appreciate being put up on a pedestal. Scientists can and often do make mistakes... even if your professors won't admit it to you.



But this is not the point I am making. We know what “certain aspects” of the biological theories are correct (an be it known that this comprises an enormous number theories within an enormous number of biological disciplines) and our repeated successful use of many of them in medicine re-enforces that.

Nothing done in medicine 'reinforces ToE.' It doesn't happen.


The ToE uses the majority of those exact same “certain aspects” of the same biological theories, which are correct and repeatedly used in medicine. The majority of ToE is made of those very same “certain aspects”.

ToE is made up of inferences and speculation about observed phenomena. Real Science doesn't do this. ToE can't be proven by it's very nature.


So, to say the ToE is wrong would be like saying that all the “certain aspects” that it is made of are wrong. But those “certain aspects” are also used in medicine.

ToE is NOT used in medicine. ToE could fall tomorrow and medicine would proceed just as it always has. No aspect of ToE is used in medicine. Medicine deals with observable measurable, confirmable concepts, while ToE deals in speculation and inference. The two are not even remotely comparable.


To your point if any one of the “certain aspects” is wrong that does not make any of the other “certain aspects” wrong that is why the overall theory is not affected. But if the overall theory is wrong then, it is because the majority of it’s sub theories were wrong.

This is not true. If rabbit fossils were found in Pre-Cambrian rock tomorrow, it would be devastating for ToE and the theory of common descent. However, it would't make other fossils 'wrong,' they still are what they are, it would just make the interpretation of the evidence wrong. If evolution is wrong, a number of inferences are wrong, but molecular biology still stands, paleontology still stands, geology still stands, the only thing that loses is evolutionary biology. What you've written is distinctly no true.


Originally posted by mattison0992
This isn't my area of expertise, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about questions such as this. It's pseudotheological.


Interesting really, you already addressed this subject; this is part of the faith healer topic to which you added Christian Scientists. This was a response to the original reference to the Greek god Asclepius. Part of modern medicines universal symbol for emergency treatment. Also, there is a connection to the Hippocratic oath a multi-theistic oath. Modern medicine really gives credit to the most abundant surviving source of medical information, Greek biological documentation. There is irony in the “Star of Life”.

While what you've written may be true, it doesn't change that
  1. This isn't my area of expertise.
  2. I couldn't care less.
  3. It's pseudotheological.



Originally posted by mattison0992
“I can't respond to this either.”


An Oxymoron
You felt compelled to quote my post and respond to it with “I can't respond to this either.”

Right... I can't respond to those specific portions of your post. It would be oxymoronic only if my entire response to your post consisted of 'I can't respond to this.'

You see... I'd rather not respond to something I don't really feel informed about. I know that's not popular around here, but that's the wa




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

An Oxymoron
You felt compelled to quote my post and respond to it with “I can't respond to this either.”

Right... I can't respond to those specific portions of your post. It would be oxymoronic only if my entire response to your post consisted of 'I can't respond to this.'

You see... I'd rather not respond to something I don't really feel informed about. I know that's not popular around here, but that's the way I do things.

But please feel free to continue to comment about things which you are obviously misinformed about.


Originally posted by mattison0992
Ummm... me too. Soooo.....


Blind faith overshadows simple understanding.:p

Oh okay... that clears it up then. Your saying you don't really understand ToE because of your blind faith in the abilities of scientists. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0992The antibiotic resources we have available are not as prolific as you have indicated.


I did not say that they were currently ‘available’. Since ‘available’ only applies to FDA approved antibiotics, yes you are correct there are not many today. I was implying that our research will go on (however slow or clandestine) to find and utilize each and every antibiotic and bacteria until there are no more unknowns (might as well be forever) until we find something better. Possibly genetic engineering of various resistance/curing tactics. I can assure you the research is far greater then the information given out. It is push comes to shove. Pharmaceutical research and development projects are not titled by numbers just to make tracking them easier, it is to help to maintain the secrecy of the product. But the bottom line hold up is money. The legal, chronological and financial layout in developing and bringing a completely new pharmaceutical product to the market is prohibitive for large corporations. The smaller companies need investors, it’s all money. This is in addition to the enormous influence that the government’s have to suddenly stifle or otherwise stymie things like proprietary ccine production in order to use the same validated process to produce their researched product. This can cause a major logistical set back. Such situations have shut down pharmaceutical production long enough for their money-making patients to expire and then so to does the research that it supported. In reality there have not been many antibiotics going up to the FDA for approval (for human use) but that does not exemplify what research is going on.


Originally posted by mattison0992A common misconception and popular argument that is not correct. Antibiotic resistance has always existed. It existed prior to the 'invention' of antibiotics. You can't have antibiotics without resistance genes. As long as there have been antibiotics there have been resistance genes. Proliferation of antibiotic resistance is nothing more than reshuffling of pre-existing genetic material. It doesn't 'evolve.'


Please provide a reference and
Please let the following three sources know of their errors.


wikipedia
When evolution is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibiotics which had been lethal to prior strains. en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution: (not ToE)

www.talkorigins.org... evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"


cdc.gov Resistance to quinolones occurs through chromosomal mutations in the genes


Your reply is Straw Man Logic
Describing a mechanism of evolution does not disprove it. Go-ahead reshuffle pre-existing genetic material that is part of evolution. Is it your position that bacterial evolution doesn’t happen or do you just not like adhering to the current definition shown above? You want to explain what/why/how pre-existing genetic material gave bacteria the need to have the ability to breakdown Nylon?


Originally posted by mattison0992You can't have antibiotics without resistance genes. As long as there have been antibiotics there have been resistance genes.


This implies a conflict with your previous comment about the proliferation antibiotic resources. Now you are claiming (without references) that antibiotics basically are as prolific as the bacteria with resistant genes. Which is almost endless. I’m sure numerous studies of Precambrian bacteria will help trace it all back to a common ancestor as you appear to support in some weird way. whyfiles.org...
Now you are giving me support to say that the antibiotics are as plentiful as the bacteria they fight and how the ToE can be used to make predictions for today’s medicine.
Which is what I have been saying in so many ways.


Originally posted by mattison0992It doesn't 'evolve.'

octavia.zoology.washington.edu...
Sure the observable evolution of bacteria may have been predominantly by horizontal gene movement but this does not alter the basis by which ‘evolution’ was determined, basic heritable changes. Recombination still does occur and in exclusive populations the gene path is not always reproducible as the exclusive mutations cause permanent changes relating the environmental influences to that particular population. When and if the populations ever mix again they may not be able to reestablish historic traits to sustain a viable population against a repeat enemy or each other. Yes one population may even borrow the resistance from another. This is part of natural selection. Whether or not it comes around again is also irrelevant.


quote: It might say that these people have been exposed to hazardous chemicals in their drinking water. It might alert you to the fact that human hormone disrupter medications that were rejected by the FDA are currently used as platisizers in standard plastic food packages. These hormone/plastisizers are fat-soluble. Without the accurate biological knowledge to test peoples blood for chemical contamination you wouldn’t know how prevent additional people from getting the same thing. With out correct biological knowledge we wouldn’t know what causes or encourages incurable necrotizing faceitis. Without empirical knowledge of bacteria no one would even know that it is not a mystical affliction


Originally posted by mattison0992
Exactly, but it has nothing to do with either evolution or ToE.


Your reply is Straw Man Logic
There was no intent to show that, because you asked what it said about our biological knowledge and what narcotizing faceitis said about our biological knowledge. You did not ask what either had to do with evolution or ToE.

But anyway, yes it does have to do with evolution.
www.stanford.edu...
This is from your NewScientist magazine reference. “How chemicals can speed up evolution” www.newscientist.com...

Necrotizing Faceitis is a factor in Natural Selection. That is part of the ToE.

The ToE does not alone rely on biology. Natural Selection has to do with improving the continuation of allies. What ever is done to make sure your offspring survive improves the chances of carrying on your genes, your bloodline so to speak. Humans slowly started to improve their chances of success by improving their world. They first had to figure out basic skills to pass on to their offspring thus giving them a head start to make further advances. Sociocultural Evolution extrapolates out from ‘fitness’ of one bloodline and deals with the population. Instructions and advice is passed on through the generations so that the next generation will be able to make improvements from that point forward and will not make the same mistakes. This builds up indefinitely. Everything we learn is a stepping-stone to know more. This started from the day we learned to communicate with each other. The knowledge that the human species has right now has been accumulating for the last 65 million years. Accumulative knowledge. Natural Selection. Fitness. Evolution of improved fitness. Survival of the ‘fittest’ (to use a poor phrase). Anything that improves the chances that your allies will carry on to the next generation is part of the natural selection theory. Even death. This definitely falls into the ToE. Sociocultural Evolution. Anthropology.



Originally posted by mattison0992

originally posted by Gravityisatheory
It also indicates that you missed understood the quote you used.

This is an incorrect use of the term ToE. Theories do not directly contribute anything they make predictions as it says in the quote.


Then this is news to the evolutionary biologists who use ToE to make predictions about the world. Perhaps you followed the saga of one of the most recent transitional fossils to be found. Evolutionary Biologists PREDICTED they would find such a fossil in such a location based on a multidisciplinary analysis of ToE. IOW, they used ToE to PREDICT they would find such a fossil in such a location.


More Straw Man Logic
You didn’t comprehend the quote not just once but twice. Or is this just ignorance?
That’s what I said, specifically I said that the “ToE…Theories….make predictions”!!
Which one of the words in my quote threw you off?
Now, you are clearly in full support of what I said in the quote and providing an example no less. Most of the time you are trying to show me wrong but here you are saying the exact same thing. You appear very confused.

You asked for “things that the ToE” contributed to medicine. The ToE doesn’t directly contribute to medicine it makes predictions. That’s one of the way theories are suppose to work. Thanks (I think) for expanding my point.



originally posted by GravityisatheoryBut to address the intent
Describe three (3) things the evolution has contributed to medicine?

1) Genomics, en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by mattison0992 Genomics arose out of the field of biochemistry and subsequently spawned the field of molecular biology. It didn't arise out of evolutionary theory.


More Straw Man Logic
Where in my quote did I say “evolutionary theory”?
I didn’t
I said evolution.



Originally posted by mattison0992 It didn't arise out of evolutionary theory

More Straw Man Logic
No kidding. I never suggest that it did. You would understand more if you would learn the vocabulary. The field of biochemistry supports the ToE. The reverse is not true, how astute. The field of biochemistry supports medicine. Medicine pays for the biochemistry.
www.talkorigins.org...

Biochemistry used for numerous purposes including medical purposes that validates the biochemistry by replication, by successful application.
It is the last step in verifying the tools, method, theories and concepts are right, replication. When using biochemistry to examine prehistoric life, the ToE can be used to make predictions. One part of ToE that is used is simply ‘evolution’. If you can’t use biochemistry in today’s world then there is no way you could understand and interpret the results of biochemistry used to study pre-historic life. Therefore biochemistry supports ToE, very simple.

More Straw Man Logic
You are refuting claims involving evolution by saying that they did not arise out of ToE. That Is Correct they did not. It is the other way around. The Theory of Evolution arose in part by the Fact of Evolution before that it was just the general biological theory or a group disassociated theories with minimal disciplines.

If there were no evolution demonstrated in the genes then we wouldn’t have a need for Genomics in the first place because there would be no reason to study genes. But we know that the genes are a dynamic part of ‘life’. The study of the fact of evolution gives us grounds to determine inheritance and trace genetic factors such as disease pervasiveness, resistance, susceptibility, etc. This is all done to improve the chances of the survival of our offspring. This again is the ‘fitness’ portion of natural selection.



Originally posted by mattison0992 They are not a product of ToE.

More Straw Man Logic
Of course not, that is not what I said, I said evolution contributed,



Originally posted by mattison0992 ToE doesn't 'predict' these things.


More Straw Man Logic
Of course not that is not what I said, I said evolution contributed. The ToE is used to make predictions.

Originally posted by mattison0992]IOW, they used ToE to PREDICT”.




Originally posted by mattison0992 How does this assist the medical field? It doesn't.

Are you kidding? All correct (not falsified or made up) medical biological knowledge is beneficial. It reduces the number of unknowns that need to be questioned and/or solved.


Originally posted by mattison0992 This is molecular biology. This has nothing to do with ToE. Chromosomal translocations and other abnormalities saying nothing of ToE. ToE didn't discover these, biochemists did. ToE doesn't 'predict' these things.


More Straw Man Logic
I didn’t say the ToE discovered anything. The ToE didn’t discover, it is used to predict. There is a difference between evolution and the ToE. Why do you know about Chromosomal Translocations and abnormalities? Why should anyone care? Don’t you think there’s a benefit to studying these things? Are there not heritable things being passed to the next generation? That is called evolution. What does the study of molecular biology have in common with paleontology and biogeography? The ToE, they support it.
“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” Theodosius Dobzhansky
This quote has been out there quite a while and I don’t see anyone stepping up to say it’s wrong. Except you! To me (and I know you are going to hammer me on this) this means that biology supports Evolution. Since Evolution is a huge portion of the Theory of Evolution, Biology also supports The Theory of Evolution. Seams very simple.
The ToE is just a categorization of long standing existing biology facts and theories now used to study past life. It is not a new or independent field of study. It is a grouping of existing empirical sciences. Molecular Biology is part of ToE as are the majority of all the other biological disciplines. They now have split them out to specific evolutionary biology grouping. Called evolutionary biology.


Originally posted by mattison0992
This is just penny ante semantics and changes nothing.


originally posted by mattison0992
Lots of things in biology are wrong... we discover this everyday.


originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Really, humor me name one. Considering the enormously broad range of disciplines within biology find one thing that has been found as absolutely wrong after passing a peer reviewed study.


A list like this could get long very quickly.

Perhaps you didn't see this article that came out last year.
External Source

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.

If you really want an extensive list, we can do that too.


Extensive list? What list are you talking about? You have gotten one thing. You haven’t satisfied the request. It was to find one thing in biology that was first shown right by the scientific method (including peer review) and then later showing it wrong. How does someone’s biased/incompetent research findings in any way show any part of biology wrong? What textbooks need to be re-written? What you have shown is that there are bad studies done by dishonest and incompetent people (some of them may be scientists) that produce false findings. Welcome to press releases and publishing perks, that’s the game. You have to start somewhere and get the information out for review. That’s why we have the peer review process. The science world knows that the actual publishing is to be ‘taken with a grain of salt’.

To weed out the bad research and bogus studies, they are scrutinized and reviewed and examined. From that same article; "We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,"

“Replicated” and “validated”. It is a fundamental part of the process. You think one or two research papers adds to biology or any science? It is the topic of the work, the end resulting contribution that is the thing. As in all empirical science proofs, it must go through the scientific method. This is part of the process of which peer review is only a small portion.


Originally posted by mattison0992
You obviously don't understand the process of peer review. Often times this 'rigorous' process amounts to review by one or two other scientists who have a whole stack of stuff they're reviewing in addition to their own research. Most scientists don't operate on the 'theory' level, and aren't out to prove things wrong. For the most part they are locked into their own specific sub-category of their sub-discipline, and don't really think about the big picture. Rocking the boat is no way to ensure future funding or future publication. In fact, history has demonstrated that articles that are true but go against popular theories are disproportionately rejected.


No, I don’t understand your shortsighted comprehension of it. Nor do I understand your intension of giving a false impression of it. It is primarily performed by the publisher (which can be a department of people). “often times” is a very misleading term within the context you use it. Part of what makes it a rigorous process is because of the availability of qualified reviewers. Since they have a professional involvement with the subject they are very concerned how publication will affect their field of study. Perhaps you should read the rest of the article you sighted. Additionally it is anonymous, it doesn’t come back to you, sure you may know what company or department the work has gone but you really don’t know who the reviewers are or how many. But that is all irrelevant peer review is only a small step in validating anything, demonstration of repeatability and validity is required before acceptance. Any scientist knows that it must be shown valid by the scientific method, this is a given. Even if your opinion of the peer review process is right the negligence of few insecure scientists or the collaboration of several connected mostly by money will not change the field of biology.
en.wikipedia.org...

Instead of supporting bogus claims about daily errors in biology, the topic has been switched to something you claim to know about, peer review. Apparently your understanding of it (in addition to your reference from the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece ) is how to participate in false studies, get them published with false data and obtain misguided funding. Is this something you know by first hand experience?

I can’t imagine how anyone with even the slightest amount of logic could consider a peer-reviewed publication as proof of anything. The purpose of peer-reviews is to remove crackpots and obvious frauds. It does just that. It may not be perfect but neither is weather reporting and we aren’t getting rid of that.

The reason I mentioned peer review was twofold. One, looking at the substance of your comments there is a question of your qualification for discussing any physical science. Most people understand that peer-review is only a very small portion of the big picture in order for anything to become ‘accepted’ as part of ‘biology’ or any physical science. The scientific method is the big picture.

When I asked for something in biology that had passed a peer review study, you decided to use Straw Man Logic and instead of addressing the main topic ‘biology’ you went for the peer review comment. This thing (theory, claim, hypothesis, method, etc.) must first go through the ‘scientific method’ of validation, of which peer-review is only a very small part, before it can become any part of any empirical science, any real scientist would know this. Instead of showing something wrong in biology, you make up things to support the well-known fact that peer review is not perfect and it is only what you make of it. Peer review was never intended to provide proof, people read into it further than they should. But, now I know the whole scientific method is new to you.

Secondly, I was hoping to encourage you to provide a solid reference for your exaggerated claims. I asked you to find something in ‘biology’ you instead found an article that basically says that people lie for different reasons. The world has long known this. That is why things must be checked out before being accepted as part of any science. Even the writer of this article knows this as they quoted “We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery.”

Your reference fails to shown any part of biology wrong. It doesn’t even talk about biology. I’m surprised you didn’t provide a reference to a specific theory that was shown as false only by new technology and knowledge and not by the level of knowledge at the time, like the theory of spontaneous generation or amputations for infections. But ok you’ve shown that there are confused people out there in the world and we should be cautious.




Originally posted by mattison0992

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory 4) How about a whole site of contributions. evolution.berkeley.edu...


Actually this site doesn't deal with 'evolutionary contributions to medicine,' it deals with 'evolutionary concerns' within medicine, that is drug resistance in pathogens etc, as well as the genetic basis for a couple of diseases. If evolutions big contribution to medicine is that 'microbes evolve resistance,' then that's not much of a contribution. How does this assist the medical field? It doesn't.



More Straw Man Logic
“This is just penny ante semantics and changes nothing.”
Evolutionary concerns within medicine? That means that evolution is important to medicine. What’s your point? That site is referenced by the talkorigins page, you know the one where you said none of it was in dispute.

So the alternate basis of your logic is, since you don’t understand it, it must be false. There are an enormous amount of medical evolutionary studies because they are so intertwined. The field(s) is still very young.

You really are oblivious to the obvious.

www.sciencemag.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www-personal.umich.edu...
www.rci.rutgers.edu...
www.newswise.com...
www.uchospitals.edu...
evonet.sdsc.edu...
“Knowledge of evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships has helped to guide research scientists to the discovery of natural compounds useful in biomedical research.”


Originally posted by mattison0992
Actually this site doesn't deal with 'evolutionary contributions to medicine,' it deals with 'evolutionary concerns' within medicine,


Actually you don’t appear to understand it.

What does the university of Berkeley know anyway? The nerve of them putting up a page titled;
“Relevance of evolution: medicine
by the Understanding Evolution team”
Who care that studying the historical path of mutation to a gene called CCR5 will lead to a cure for HIV? That’s not a contribution to medicine right?


Originally posted by mattison0992
If evolutions big contribution to medicine is that 'microbes evolve resistance,'

You said, “They don’t evolve”, you need to make up your mind.


originally posted by Gravityisatheory6) Even drugs; Digitalis, morphine, quinine, and ephedrine are all modern medicines that have been passed down to us from prehistoric signature practice.



Originally posted by mattison0992
Okay, but this has NOTHING to do with ToE.


NATURAL SELECTION!!
It is absolutely part of ToE. It has nothing to do with direct biological evolution. It is part of natural selection. Much more complicated when talking about humans. What group do you think has a better chance of offspring survival? The ones with medical knowledge and abilities or the ones without it? If faith healers refuses to give simple medical treatment to their offspring the chances of their genes continuing through to the next few generations is significantly reduced. That is natural selection at work.


originally posted by Gravityisatheory
· The understanding of cellular variation
· www.talkorigins.org...



Originally posted by mattison0992 None of this is in dispute.

Obviously you either didn’t read it or don’t understand any of it!!
I’ve been reiterating this information repetitively only to you have you refute it. You appear to be resistive to all it says. IE not open minded IE not capable of being objective IE stuck on blind faith.
From TalkOrigins The ToE… “It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella.”
This means that biology supports ToE. All fields of biology. Including medical fields of biology. Thus Medicine as part of biology falls under that umbrella. Medicine supports ToE, very simple.

Originally posted by mattison0992 None of this is in dispute.

From TalkOrigins the Fact of Evolution “Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology”
I guess it is a huge leap of faith to believe that modern biology is also the cornerstone of modern Medicine. Right?

Originally posted by mattison0992 Medicine deals with observable measurable, confirmable concepts, while ToE deals in speculation and inference. The two are not even remotely comparable.

Now it is clear what the problem is. You have absolutely no idea what a theory is. This is way over your head. That explains why all of your replies miss the point entirely. You need to abandon your layman’s definition of a theory because it is absolutely wrong under the context of any physical science. You should drop your guise as a scientist, no competent scientist in any empirical science would use this definition.
From TalkOrigins “It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella.”

“Reproductive success (fitness) has two components; direct fitness and indirect fitness. Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing. Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool. Direct fitness plus indirect fitness is inclusive fitness. J. B. S. Haldane once remarked he would gladly drown, if by doing so he saved two siblings or eight cousins. Each of his siblings would share one half his alleles; his cousins, one eighth. They could potentially add as many of his alleles to the gene pool as he could.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

You don’t think that modern medicine has any effect on reproductive success? Or that human intervention has affected Natural Selection from extinctions to captivity, slavery and breeding. Artificial Selection is part of Natural Selection.
Natural Selection deals with improving the success of offspring. Hospitals do that. They use biology of which (as you say is not in dispute from talkorigins) evolution is the cornerstone. Therefore they are part of the whole picture of ‘fitness’.


originally posted by Gravityisatheory
But this is not the point I am making. We know what “certain aspects” of the biological theories are correct (an be it known that this comprises an enormous number theories within an enormous number of biological disciplines) and our repeated successful use of many of them in medicine re-enforces that.



Originally posted by mattison0992 Nothing done in medicine 'reinforces ToE.' It doesn't happen.

More Straw Man Logic
That is very nice. How is that applicable to what you quoted?


Originally posted by mattison0992 “ToE can't be proven by it's very nature.”

More Straw Man Logic
No kidding, I never said otherwise. If proven it would be fact not theory.
“ToE is NOT used in medicine.”
Not directly. Biological theories are used in medicine. The ToE includes those theories.

Originally posted by mattison0992 Medicine deals with observable measurable, confirmable concepts, while ToE deals in speculation and inference. The two are not even remotely comparable.


Details of the past also hold explanatory power in biology

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Like the hypothesis that a historical resistant gene has given 20% of Europe resistivity to HIV.
Seams to me that if the ToE has explanatory power in biology it also has it in medicine.

Originally posted by mattison0992 “ If rabbit fossils were found in Pre-Cambrian rock tomorrow, it would be devastating for ToE and the theory of common descent. However, it wouldn’t make other fossils 'wrong,' they still are what they are, it would just make the interpretation of the evidence wrong. If evolution is wrong, a number of inferences are wrong, …. the only thing that loses is evolutionary biology.”

NO. You have no idea what evolutionary biology is!
Absolutely not, and for some of the reasons you have sited.
“that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.”
First it would have absolutely nothing to do with the fact of evolution, this would be dealing with the Theory of Evolution. Secondly theories are out there to be modified that does not make them entirely wrong. Third, you would need to prove it was part of the same biological ‘tree’, otherwise it would not affect the theory of common descent what so ever. There is no reason to believe it all started from a singular event. Forth, even if you could say this was proof of spontaneous generation and orthogenesis, it would not in any way harm the ToE, it would become part of it.
FACT: If you found a rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rock and attempted to bring it forward you would be committing professional suicide.

In fact, history has demonstrated that articles that are true but go against popular theories are disproportionately rejected.

You would need a lot of proof before anyone would hear you. You would need a fantastic theory before anyone would even consider believing you. You would have to prove that it was insitu. You would have to prove that that chuck of rock couldn’t possibly carried here as part of one of the impact theories. There may be a chunk of Precambrian rock with a rabbit fossil on the dark side of the moon as well. You would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fossils could not be faked. You would have to use the scientific method to study it and a sample size of ‘one’ is almost worthless, because it proves nothing. If you can be so extreme as to offer a rabbit in Precambrian rock example then there must be leeway for extreme explanations such as there are more than just one habitable evolving places in the universe and some of them get destroyed and scattered across multiple universes. You can’t possibly bring down ToE. You could seriously trim it but you can’t stop it. Because as you know what we have as fact still remains as fact and our explanations of things we understand still remains. Such a find would just be an unknown piece of a puzzle.
Suppose you could prove from this rabbit fossil (aside from the unexplained age and location), suppose you could show that is was nothing other than a digestive track for any bacteria possible and a whole bunch of stem cells with blank DNA. That would certainly affect the course of future biology. It would trim but it would not bring down ToE, that’s the nature of the theory.
I don’t care if you find a fountain pen in a Precambrian rock. It would not amount to a drop of water in the ocean. It would be just like finishing a huge one of a kind billion-piece puzzle of the New York City skyline and finding one additional puzzle piece that is obviously part of Mickey Mouse’s nose. What effect would that additional piece have on the rest of the puzzle? None. One in a billion. That piece is obviously part of a different puzzle. You can take it back and investigate, throw it away or hold on to it until you learn more. You would not throw away or even change the whole completed puzzle and say that it now all-worthless because we can’t figure out this one piece.
Someday you may find that there was a whole other billion-piece puzzle behind this one. The piece you have is just left over. Perhaps this planet was “seeded” with life from the prokaryotes, eukaryotes and bacterial survivors that lived in the digestive tract of that rabbit before it was rapidly fossilized by the process of its world being scattered about. A few of the Precambrian rocks slammed into this planet and the result was evolution. By golly that rabbit was the biological “Adam”. Where’s that fountain pen?


Originally posted by mattison0992
1. This isn't my area of expertise.
2. I couldn't care less.

Right. After demonstrating it, confessing your ignorance is appropriate.


Your blind faith has made you so closed minded and biased that you can’t see the forest through the trees.

evonet.sdsc.edu...

When biologists refer to the theory of evolution, they use the word "theory" as it is used throughout science. It does not mean a mere speculation or an unsupported hypothesis. Rather, as The Oxford English Dictionary puts it, "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed" (our italics). The complex body of principles that explain evolutionary change is a theory in the same sense as "quantum theory" in physics or "atomic theory" in chemistry: it has been developed from evidence, tested, and refined, and it accounts for literally thousands of observations made throughout the entirety of biological science and paleontology.
Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is a current best explanation. It has withstood innumerable tests and attempts to disprove it, but it is still being refined, modified in the light of new knowledge, and extended to account for newly discovered phenomena. The theory of genetics has had such a history, progressing from Mendel's simple early principles to the complex body of molecular principles that constitute today's theory of inheritance, and it is constantly being refined and modified, even though its core principles have remained valid for a century. So it is with the theory of evolution.
Biologists accept as fact that all organisms, living and extinct, have descended, with innumerable changes, from one or at most a few original forms of life. For Darwin in 1859, this was a hypothesis, for which he provided abundant evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology, behavior, agriculture, paleontology, and the geographic distributions of organisms. Since that time, all of the many thousands of observations in each of these areas have supported Darwin's core hypothesis. To these observations has been added copious evidence that Darwin could hardly have dreamed of, especially from paleontology and molecular biology. A century's accumulation of such evidence establishes descent, with modification, from common ancestors as a fact of science. How we explain this fact—what the principles and causes of it may be—is the theory of evolutionary process, parts of which are subject to various amounts of scientific debate, modification, and extension.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory



NOw this is a good post. THis post should stand as a testament to what the O & C forum can be.

In any case... gravity... thanks for a well thought out post.

Rest assured I am working on a response. I could be somewhat delayed over the next couple of days, as I have to do field work, and my PC at home... the one I use at least is flaking out on me.

In any event, I plan on having a full response written by the weekend.

I do have one concern though... why is gravity able to post more than 8000 characters?

Multiple posts of his exceed the allotted number of characters.. Why is this?

Oh yes, and I address this in the response that I am writing, but apparently I did misread you re: predictions. We have no conflict there.... still plenty left to discuss.

Hold on to your seats folks... this is gonna be a good one... I hope anyway...



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
I did not say that they were currently 'available'. Since 'available' only applies to FDA approved antibiotics, yes you are correct there are not many today.

Actually... there are not large amounts of antibiotics in the pipeline either... this is why resistance is such a concern. If there were unlimited antibiotic resources available, resistance wouldn't be such an issue.


But the bottom line hold up is money. The legal, chronological and financial layout in developing and bringing a completely new pharmaceutical product to the market is prohibitive for large corporations.
While this is true in general, this isn't the case with antibiotics. Successful antibiotics are tough to come by, and there really aren't that many new ones in the pipeline. The new one's are generally variations on existing structures, which mean resistance comes quickly.


In reality there have not been many antibiotics going up to the FDA for approval (for human use) but that does not exemplify what research is going on.

Exactly what I've been saying... there aren't many antibiotics in the pipeline.



Please provide a reference and
Please let the following three sources know of their errors.

Here is a good one. A highlight:

The first point to make is that resistance genes and mechanisms existed long before antibiotics were used. For example, antibiotic resistant bacteria have been isolated from deep within glaciers in Canada s high Arctic regions, estimated at 2000 years old.9 The micro-organisms used to produce antibiotics must, by definition, be resistant and are thus a source of antibiotic resistance genes.


I would never use wiki, as a source, so I wouldn't bother correcting them. Perhaps, since they're your sources, you should notify them.


Your reply is Straw Man Logic
Describing a mechanism of evolution does not disprove it. Go-ahead reshuffle pre-existing genetic material that is part of evolution.

Then again, a horizontal transfer of genes between micro-organisms doesn't prove that bacteria can 'evolve' to multi-cellular entities. This is simply interspecies variation, and does NOT speak to changes from one species to another.


Is it your position that bacterial evolution doesn t happen or do you just not like adhering to the current definition shown above?

Depends on what you mean by 'evolution' bacterial populations certainly change, but not necessarily to different bacterial species, nor to multi-cellular organisms.


You want to explain what/why/how pre-existing genetic material gave bacteria the need to have the ability to breakdown Nylon?

Sure. This is a species of pseudomonas. Pseudomonads in general are noted for their ability to adapt to xenobiotics. It appears that pseudomonads maintain extrachromosomal DNA for the express purpose of adapting to a wide variety of compounds. That these bugs can generate this ability in 9 days from complete naivete indicates that there is likely something other than random processes occuring. In fact the amount of time, coupled with the same mutations being found are suggestive of adaptive or some type of directed process.


This implies a conflict with your previous comment about the proliferation antibiotic resources. Now you are claiming (without references) that antibiotics basically are as prolific as the bacteria with resistant genes. Which is almost endless. I m sure numerous studies of Precambrian bacteria will help trace it all back to a common ancestor as you appear to support in some weird way.
Actually there is no conflict at all. I never said antibiotics and resistance genes are equally prolific. I said as long as there have been antibiotics there have been resistance genes. Please refer to the italicized text in the previous ref.


Now you are giving me support to say that the antibiotics are as plentiful as the bacteria they fight

Nope. In fact, I've been saying quite the opposite, there are a finite amount of antibiotics available, and very few in the pipeline.



octavia.zoology.washington.edu...
Sure the observable evolution of bacteria may have been predominantly by horizontal gene movement but this does not alter the basis by which 'evolution' was determined, basic heritable changes. Recombination still does occur and in exclusive populations the gene path is not always reproducible as the exclusive mutations cause permanent changes relating the environmental influences to that particular population. When and if the populations ever mix again they may not be able to reestablish historic traits to sustain a viable population against a repeat enemy or each other. Yes one population may even borrow the resistance from another. This is part of natural selection. Whether or not it comes around again is also irrelevant.

Yes... so... none of this proves what evolution is taken to mean in the larger context, that is universal common ancestry, and basically bacteria evolving to more complex beings. Nothing here proves this, and that bacteria adapt through genetic change isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the degree of interspecies variation that is possible.



Your reply is Straw Man Logic
There was no intent to show that, because you asked what it said about our biological knowledge and what narcotizing faceitis said about our biological knowledge. You did not ask what either had to do with evolution or ToE.

Right, because their not related to evolution or ToE. You may want to look up the definition of 'strawman' none of the arguments I've used are strawmen.


Necrotizing Faceitis is a factor in Natural Selection.

What in the world does this mean?


originally posted by Gravityisatheory
It also indicates that you missed understood the quote you used.



More Straw Man Logic
You didn t comprehend the quote not just once but twice. Or is this just ignorance?
That s what I said, specifically I said that the ToE Theories .make predictions !!
Which one of the words in my quote threw you off?


Hmmm... now this must have been a mistake on my part... I thought you said ToE didn't make predictions. Not sure how is misread this... my mistake.



Originally posted by mattison0992 Genomics arose out of the field of biochemistry and subsequently spawned the field of molecular biology. It didn't arise out of evolutionary theory.




More Straw Man Logic
Where in my quote did I say 'evolutionary theory'?
I didn't I said evolution.

Okay... genomics arose out of the field of biochemistry, not evolution. How does this change anything? Biochemistry created genomics, not evolution, nor ToE.



More Straw Man Logic
No kidding. I never suggest that it did. You would understand more if you would learn the vocabulary. The field of biochemistry supports the ToE. The reverse is not true, how astute. The field of biochemistry supports medicine. Medicine pays for the biochemistry.

Really, then what did you mean when you posted


Describe three (3) things the evolution has contributed to medicine?

And then listed "Genomics" as the first one. Call me crazy, but this seems to suggest that genomics is something that evolution contributed to medicine. Please clarify. Again, you may wish to look up the definition of strawman with respect to arguments.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Biochemistry used for numerous purposes including medical purposes that validates the biochemistry by replication, by successful application.
It is the last step in verifying the tools, method, theories and concepts are right, replication. When using biochemistry to examine prehistoric life, the ToE can be used to make predictions. One part of ToE that is used is simply 'evolution . If you can t use biochemistry in today s world then there is no way you could understand and interpret the results of biochemistry used to study pre-historic life. Therefore biochemistry supports ToE, very simple.

Certainly biochemisty has been used to support ToE. However you stated Genomics was a contribution to medicine from evolution. This isn't true, and I don't dispute that people support evolution via biochemistry... talk about strawmen



More Straw Man Logic
You are refuting claims involving evolution by saying that they did not arise out of ToE. That Is Correct they did not.
This is absolutely NOT what you said, as I've indicated above.


If there were no evolution demonstrated in the genes then we wouldn t have a need for Genomics in the first place because there would be no reason to study genes.

Baloney... I've studied genes for years, and I am not in any way associated with ToE, or any evolutionary theory. There are plenty of non-evolutionary reasons to generate sequence data... Sequence data is used in protein modeling, genetic engineering, and practically every aspect of biotechnology... genetic identifications are becoming the norm, and aren't possible without sequence data. Sequences are mine looking for particular motifs that will appear in the protein for engineering purposes. There are myriad uses for sequence data not related to ToE or evolution. Shame on you for your shortsightedness.


Are you kidding? All correct (not falsified or made up) medical biological knowledge is beneficial. It reduces the number of unknowns that need to be questioned and/or solved.

Okay but medical knowledge isn't related to ToE or Evolution.


More Straw Man Logic
I didn't say the ToE discovered anything. The ToE didn t discover, it is used to predict.

Okay... ToE doesn't predict chromosomal translocations. There an observed fact, not a prediction.


Why do you know about Chromosomal Translocations and abnormalities?

Because I worked in cancer research.


Why should anyone care? Don't you think there's a benefit to studying these things?

Of course.

Are there not heritable things being passed to the next generation? That is called evolution.

No it's not. That's called passing on heritable information, and it DOESN'T prove that beings share a universal common ancestor, which is the definition of evolution that is in dispute here.



"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Theodosius Dobzhansky
This quote has been out there quite a while and I don t see anyone stepping up to say it s wrong. Except you!

Well, actually we've not discussed this quote, so I didn't technically say it's wrong.
Though it's somewhat meaningless to me. When my perspectives on ToE, changed, I knew lots of biology. What does this mean... suddenly I don't understand transcription/translation anymore. That suddenly my doubts about UCA, have rendered my unable to isolate proteins. It's a nice phrase, poetic and all, but it really doesn't apply in the life of most biologists. If I stopped believing in any aspect of evolution, would this mean that I suddenly couldn't successfully set up PCR. What exactly does this mean?


To me (and I know you are going to hammer me on this) this means that biology supports Evolution. Since Evolution is a huge portion of the Theory of Evolution, Biology also supports The Theory of Evolution. Seams very simple.

Ummm... I've never disputed that biology is used to support ToE. I disputed that if Evolution or ToE didn't exist neither would hospitals. Yes, biology is one of the disciplines used to support ToE. I have no problem with this. But if Darwin had never lived, hospitals would still exist. Please stick to refuting arguments I made. Thanks.



Extensive list? What list are you talking about? You have gotten one thing.

Right, I provided a general reference demonstrating that the process of peer-review generates articles that have errors. I didn't say this is an extensive list, I said we could create an extensive list.


You haven't satisfied the request. It was to find one thing in biology that was first shown right by the scientific method (including peer review) and then later showing it wrong.

Okay... a couple off the top of my head.

Prior to 1982, the scientific method established that infectious agents must contain nucleic acids, either RNA or DNA. This was demonstrated via peer-review, in fact the unknown agents were often referred to as 'slow viruses'. Here is one such example.

Prusiner, later established that the infectious agents later identified as 'prions' didn't contain any nucleic acid whatsoever, but were in fact, entirely proteinaceous.

The central dogma of biology states, that DNA --> RNA --> Protein. Now for years this idea was untouchable. Information never goes back the other way... whoops... a discovery of a protein called Reverse transcriptase proved that the central dogma of biology was incorrect and is better represented by DNA RNA --> Protein.

Let's see, Here and here are peer-reviewed papers that postulate the mechanism of ATP synthesis associated with electron transport chains involves a high energy intermediate. Well, as soon as Mitchell postulated the idea of chemiosmotic ATP synthesis, these ideas were abandoned. That is these peer reviewed biological concepts were wrong.

An example for evolutionary Theory: For years evolutionary biologists cited the Ancon sheep as an example of rapid evolutionary progress, and as proof that evolution can occur in a single generation. It was actually used to support both gradual and non-gradual hypotheses re: evolution. This paper demonstrates that the EB's were wrong, and that sheep were a product of genetic disease, had achondroplasia, and that these traits, originally touted as a selective advantage actually were responsible for the demise of the breed.

Finally This peer-reviewed paper appeared in the most prestigious science journal in the world, and was not only proven to be wrong, but was in fact a hoax.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Welcome to press releases and publishing perks, that s the game. You have to start somewhere and get the information out for review.

Actually, this couldn't be more wrong. You don't start with press releases or whatever a 'publishing perk' is. You go right to the journals. Going straight for a press release and bypassing peer review is one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience.


That's why we have the peer review process. The science world knows that the actual publishing is to be 'taken with a grain of salt'.

Interesting a paragraph ago it seems like you were pretty much stating peer-review couldn't make a mistake, now you're saying published science must be taken with a grain of salt. These ideas appear to stand in opposition to each other. Please clarify.


To weed out the bad research and bogus studies, they are scrutinized and reviewed and examined. From that same article; "We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,"

You've missed the point. That 'most research findings will be refuted' demonstrates pretty much what I've been saying all along. Lots of things in science are wrong, including those that have passed peer review and will be refuted.



No, I don t understand your shortsighted comprehension of it. Nor do I understand your intension of giving a false impression of it.

Shortsighted comprehension... try first-hand experience... and I'm NOT giving a false impression. If you send your stuff to a reasonably prestigious journal... JBC for example. This rigorous peer review process, is exactly two people reading your paper. If you publish in a less prestigious journal... say FEBS, then often times, it amounts to review by a single reviewer.

How many peer reviewed articles have you published? How many journals have you sat on the editorial board of?


It is primarily performed by the publisher (which can be a department of people).

Nope, the publisher forwards it off to at least one reviewer who sits on their review board. For the most part the reviewer isn't even associated with the journal, other than sitting on the review board.


often times is a very misleading term within the context you use it.

No, it isn't. Have you published anything peer reviewed?


Part of what makes it a rigorous process is because of the availability of qualified reviewers. Since they have a professional involvement with the subject they are very concerned how publication will affect their field of study. Perhaps you should read the rest of the article you sighted.

Read it, that's why I cited it. Also, I don't need to read an article to know this stuff... all I have to do is keep submitting papers.


Additionally it is anonymous, it doesn t come back to you, sure you may know what company or department the work has gone but you really don t know who the reviewers are or how many.


Yes, it is anonymous, but if you know your area, you can usually tell who reviewed, as you know who is on their board, and you usually 'suggest' a reviewer when you submit your manuscript from a list of potential reviewers. Believe me... I can tell when Senior has reviewed one of my papers as opposed to Nakamoto, thier concerns are different, and the type of experiments they look for are different. If you know your field, know your review boards, and know the projects in your field, you can usually get a good idea of who reviewed your paper.



Instead of supporting bogus claims about daily errors in biology, the topic has been switched to something you claim to know about, peer review. Apparently your understanding of it (in addition to your reference from the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece ) is how to participate in false studies, get them published with false data and obtain misguided funding. Is this something you know by first hand experience?


Which false studies did I publish? All my papers for the most part are well-recieved, all were rejected initially, but this is the norm for peer review. A paper almost never comes back without corrections. My most recent publication was actually an accelerated publication in biochemistry. That is the editors thought it important enough to expedite publishing, and published it about 2.5 months after I first submitted it.


I can t imagine how anyone with even the slightest amount of logic could consider a peer-reviewed publication as proof of anything. The purpose of peer-reviews is to remove crackpots and obvious frauds. It does just that. It may not be perfect but neither is weather reporting and we aren t getting rid of that.

Huh? When did I say peer review proves anything? Please stick to arguments I actually made. Thanks.


The reason I mentioned peer review was twofold. One, looking at the substance of your comments there is a question of your qualification for discussing any physical science. Most people understand that peer-review is only a very small portion of the big picture in order for anything to become 'accepted' as part of 'biology' or any physical science. The scientific method is the big picture.

Oh... okay... B.S. Biochemistry, magna cum laude, Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology, summa cum laude. I've worked in biodefense, worked on the gov't's HISSS project, worked on developing bioassays for biowarfare agents, currently working to develop biological controls for plant pathogens and potential ag-warfare agents.

Your qualifications?


But, now I know the whole scientific method is new to you.




Secondly, I was hoping to encourage you to provide a solid reference for your exaggerated claims. I asked you to find something in 'biology'

Please see above.


you instead found an article that basically says that people lie for different reasons.

Interesting take on that article, as that's not what it said at all.


Your reference fails to shown any part of biology wrong.

See above refs.



Evolutionary concerns within medicine? That means that evolution is important to medicine. What s your point? That site is referenced by the talkorigins page, you know the one where you said none of it was in dispute.


Ummm you stated:

4) How about a whole site of contributions.
In response to:

Describe three things that ToE has contributed to medicine.


My point is I said describe three contributions evolution has made to medicine. This site didn't describe any contributions, it described observed facts that are relevant to medicine, but evolution hasn't contributed anything, except maybe to note that 'microbes become resistant.' You don't need evolution to tell you this, it's an observed fact. And how is TO referencing this relevant?


So the alternate basis of your logic is, since you don t understand it, it must be false. There are an enormous amount of medical evolutionary studies because they are so intertwined. The field(s) is still very young.

Nope, that's not my logic at all. What specifically did I say was 'false.'



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

You really are oblivious to the obvious.

Well thanks for all your efforts to straighten me out




Actually you don't appear to understand it.

Oh, I understand it quite well.


What does the university of Berkeley know anyway? The nerve of them putting up a page titled;
Relevance of evolution: medicine
by the Understanding Evolution team
Who care that studying the historical path of mutation to a gene called CCR5 will lead to a cure for HIV? That s not a contribution to medicine right?

The dispute was not with Berkeley hosting the site, my issue was with contributions that evolution has made to medicine.

Sure studying HIV genes may lead to a cure, but that's a contribution from biochemistry, not evolution.


Originally posted by mattison0992
If evolutions big contribution to medicine is that 'microbes evolve resistance,'




You said, "They don't evolve", you need to make up your mind.

No... my mind is made up the use of ' indicates a paraphrase, ie that is I was paraphrasing someone else, specifically the sites you've posted. This is not my statement, this is a paraphrase of evolutions alleged contribution to medicine.


NATURAL SELECTION!!
It is absolutely part of ToE. It has nothing to do with direct biological evolution. It is part of natural selection. Much more complicated when talking about humans. What group do you think has a better chance of offspring survival? The ones with medical knowledge and abilities or the ones without it? If faith healers refuses to give simple medical treatment to their offspring the chances of their genes continuing through to the next few generations is significantly reduced. That is natural selection at work.


Okay... and I disputed natural selection where? It seems that this was written in response to the point I made that a bunch of drugs resulted from ToE or evolution, they didn't.


Originally posted by mattison0992 None of this is in dispute.


Obviously you either didn t read it or don t understand any of it!!
I ve been reiterating this information repetitively only to you have you refute it. You appear to be resistive to all it says. IE not open minded IE not capable of being objective IE stuck on blind faith.
From TalkOrigins The ToE It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella.
This means that biology supports ToE. All fields of biology. Including medical fields of biology. Thus Medicine as part of biology falls under that umbrella. Medicine supports ToE, very simple.

I have never disputed that biology is used to support ToE or evolution. I don't dispute that biology and many other disciplines are cited as evidence in favor of ToE or Evolution. Apparently, you just don't understand what I am saying.



From TalkOrigins the Fact of Evolution Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology

I just don't agree with this. The cornerstone of modern biology is molecular biology and molecular techniques, not ToE.


I guess it is a huge leap of faith to believe that modern biology is also the cornerstone of modern Medicine. Right?

Nope, but modern biology could stand if Darwin's theory fell tomorrow. Modern medicine isn't dependent on defending the theory of common descent or natural selection.


Now it is clear what the problem is. You have absolutely no idea what a theory is. This is way over your head. That explains why all of your replies miss the point entirely. You need to abandon your layman s definition of a theory because it is absolutely wrong under the context of any physical science. You should drop your guise as a scientist, no competent scientist in any empirical science would use this definition.

Ummm... I looked back through my posts, and I don't see where I used any definition of a theory, nor did I ever define a theory. Please point out where I used and erroneous definition of theory. I can't find it. ToE, specifically the theory of common descent is inference and speculation based on facts. That's undeniable. ToE, and evolution are not inductive disciplines, they're deductive.


From TalkOrigins It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella.

Yep, and paleontology, and geology. So? I've never disputed that ToE is a multi-disciplinary idea.


Reproductive success (fitness) has two components; direct fitness and indirect fitness. Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing. Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool. Direct fitness plus indirect fitness is inclusive fitness. J. B. S. Haldane once remarked he would gladly drown, if by doing so he saved two siblings or eight cousins. Each of his siblings would share one half his alleles; his cousins, one eighth. They could potentially add as many of his alleles to the gene pool as he could.

Okay... I can make my own Punnet's square. How is this relevant to the topic at hand?


You don t think that modern medicine has any effect on reproductive success?

When did I state this?


Or that human intervention has affected Natural Selection from extinctions to captivity, slavery and breeding. Artificial Selection is part of Natural Selection.

When did I dispute this?

Also, artificial selection and natural selection are completely different phenomena. NS would never permit a horrific product of AS, such as the english Bulldog, for example to exist.


Natural Selection deals with improving the success of offspring. Hospitals do that.

Hospitals do not improve success of offspring via NS. In fact, hospitals act in direct opposition to NS, keeping infants that NS would 'weed out' alive. Hospitals DO NOT 'improve the success of offspring by NS.


They use biology of which (as you say is not in dispute from talkorigins) evolution is the cornerstone. Therefore they are part of the whole picture of 'fitness .

I don't dispute that hospitals use biology. I do dispute whether or not evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.


More Straw Man Logic
That is very nice. How is that applicable to what you quoted?


Originally posted by mattison0992 ToE can't be proven by it's very nature.

More Straw Man Logic
No kidding, I never said otherwise. If proven it would be fact not theory.

Okay... so then we agree on something, ToE is unprovable, and thus not a fact.


ToE is NOT used in medicine.

Not directly. Biological theories are used in medicine. The ToE includes those theories.

Which is exactly what I've been saying.



Like the hypothesis that a historical resistant gene has given 20% of Europe resistivity to HIV.

Hmmm... I'm not familiar with this. Got a link to something primary?


Seams to me that if the ToE has explanatory power in biology it also has it in medicine.

Okay... could you perhaps provide an example.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0992 If rabbit fossils were found in Pre-Cambrian rock tomorrow, it would be devastating for ToE and the theory of common descent. However, it wouldn t make other fossils 'wrong,' they still are what they are, it would just make the interpretation of the evidence wrong. If evolution is wrong, a number of inferences are wrong, . the only thing that loses is evolutionary biology.



NO. You have no idea what evolutionary biology is!

Okay, then please enlighten us how finding mammalian fossils in Pre-cambrian rock wouldn't be devastating for ToE, evolution, or the idea of common descent.


Absolutely not, and for some of the reasons you have sited.
that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.

One mammalian fossil in pre-cambrian rock is all one needs. This type of evidence isn't dependent upon small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, or selective reporting. This would effectively falsify the ToE, and the idea of common descent.


First it would have absolutely nothing to do with the fact of evolution, this would be dealing with the Theory of Evolution.

This is just a ridiculous distinction. Rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian rock pretty much falsify the ToE. The fact of evolution, otherwise known as interspecies variation, would simply be recognized as such.


Secondly theories are out there to be modified that does not make them entirely wrong.

Pre-cambrian rabbit fossils would make this one wrong. Please explain in detail how evolution would account for this.


Third, you would need to prove it was part of the same biological 'tree , otherwise it would not affect the theory of common descent what so ever.

Ummm... yes it would. Given that there is assumed to be a universal common ancestor, which tree of life are you talking about. That tree of life hasn't been discovered. Essentially, based on the idea of a UCA, there is only a single UCA, and thus a single tree of life. Where did this other tree of life come from?


There is no reason to believe it all started from a singular event.

Really... hmmm... this will be news to Evolutionary biologists who pretty much operate under this assumption. Usually this is based on things such as a practically universal genetic code, common metabolisms, and biochemical mechanisms. No Biologist I know of has ever stated life started multiple times, and it's certainly not something in any biology text at any level. Where did you pull this from? Please provide a ref.


Forth, even if you could say this was proof of spontaneous generation and orthogenesis, it would not in any way harm the ToE, it would become part of it.

Hmmm... most biologists including Haldane, the individual from where I took this example, would disagree with you. A theory that can account for everything can explain nothing.

And we get to the meat of the evolutionists belief here:


You can t possibly bring down ToE.

Why should any contrary evidence even be considered in light of such a statement.


Suppose you could prove from this rabbit fossil (aside from the unexplained age and location), suppose you could show that is was nothing other than a digestive track for any bacteria possible and a whole bunch of stem cells with blank DNA.

This statment makes ZERO sense. How could a rabbit fossil be shown to be the digestive tract of bacteria?

Gravity, bacteria don't have 'digestive tracts,' metabolism is carried out in the cytoplasm. Stem Cells with blank DNA, you'll have to forgive me. 'BLank DNA' wasn't covered in my molecular genetics classes, what exactly is 'blank DNA?' DNA without the Nitrogenous bases perhaps... I can't imagine what this statement refers to. You were doing good for a while, what happened here?


That would certainly affect the course of future biology. It would trim but it would not bring down ToE, that s the nature of the theory.

Here you have it folks, Gravity basically admits, the ToE is not falsifiable, nothing can make him/her not believe it. Things like rabbit fossils in the precambrian would be enough for Haldane, but not Gravity.


I don t care if you find a fountain pen in a Precambrian rock. It would not amount to a drop of water in the ocean.

Wow! You really are dogmatically committed to this, huh?


It would be just like finishing a huge one of a kind billion-piece puzzle of the New York City skyline and finding one additional puzzle piece that is obviously part of Mickey Mouse s nose. What effect would that additional piece have on the rest of the puzzle? None.

Wow!


One in a billion. That piece is obviously part of a different puzzle.

See, here is the problem. NO matter what... some people will hold on to this idea, in light of any evidence, evidence that even the most staunch evolutionary scientists feel would adequately disprove ToE, WOULDN'T disprove the theory to gravity. And you say I can't be objective.



Classic.



Right. After demonstrating it, confessing your ignorance is appropriate.




Your blind faith has made you so closed minded and biased that you can t see the forest through the trees.

Blind faith? Oh... I see... the old he doesn't believe in evolution, therefore he must be some religious nut.

Sorry. You read too much Dawkins.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Mein gott, the one good example we can use to show that ToE is falsifiable and we have an evolutionist denying its validity...

....ooops



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
well thought I'd come back and post this...

I think ToE and common descent does have an input into medical knowledge. We use animals as models for the behaviour of pharmaceuticals in humans. Given they are not always perfect, but why do we use mammals rather than insects, fish, or birds?

I personally know of a researcher who uses marms in their research. They'll create a lesion and assess how this neural lesion affects behaviour. This data is used for neurological therapies amongst other things. Recently, Colin Blakemore, a top neuroscientist in the UK and head of the medical research council, suggested that at some point we may need to use our closest relatives, apes, in medical research. Why?

Conditioning theories all stem from a knowledge that behaviour only differs by degree across species, ask Jospeh LeDoux how much his studies on fear conditioning in rats have helped us understand anxiety disorders such as PTSD. Pavlov, Skinner, and Watson decided that dogs, rats, and pigeons were good models for conditioning experiments, and I guess they accepted the similarities between human and animal behaviour/physiology to justify this. Behavioural therapies are dependent on these studies.

There is a wad of neuroscientific research on our relatives that will provide medical benefits for humans.

And a friend told me that a study on fruit-fly casings actually provided an understanding of colon cancer (I know nothing about its validity as an example though, haha).

I suppose the obligatory creationist answer is "common design"...

But I think the important point is to actually ask - what has creationist/ID science ever done for our lives? Not just medicine, but in all aspects of improving our lives...





[edit on 15-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think ToE and common descent does have an input into medical knowledge. We use animals as models for the behaviour of pharmaceuticals in humans. Given they are not always perfect, but why do we use mammals rather than insects, fish, or birds?

Because their systems are more closely similar of course. Obviously mammalian systems are closer to other mammalian systems than they are to bird systems, but WHY they are closely similar is NOT a fact.


I personally know of a researcher who uses marms in their research. They'll create a lesion and assess how this neural lesion affects behaviour.

Forgive me, but what in the heck is a marm?


This data is used for neurological therapies amongst other things. Recently, Colin Blakemore, a top neuroscientist in the UK and head of the medical research council, suggested that at some point we may need to use our closest relatives, apes, in medical research. Why?

Obviously because their systems are more closely similar. However certainly animal models, as your above post indicates, are often chosen for their tendency to exhibit a disorder that coincides with some human disease.

I personally know a researcher who uses beagles in his brain tumor experiments. Why beagles specifically? Because something in their genetic make-up permits them to manifest a brain cancer similar to humans. Not just any dog will do, beagles, very specifically are used. Why wouldn't this researcher use a primate model? Certainly primates are more closely related to humans than are beagles. The facility where this individual works also has an extensive vivarium with a primate section. Using primates would have been no problem... the resources are already in place. Primates are not a good model for this particular human disease, despite the similarity in their systems. An example such as this stands in opposition to the idea that evolution somehow contributes to animal research. If the ToE and CD are true, then why wouldn't primates make a better model than beagles. ET would predict primates are the best models for all complex human diseases.

Of course this isn't the case, most human diseases have a 'pet' research animal that 'models' a particular facet of disease. There are HIV mice, alzheimers mice, transgenic pigs for alzheimers, etc. There is really no consensus on which organisms are the best models for human disease. In fact, accoding to This site


The usefulness of a laboratory animal model should be judged on how well it answers the specific questions it is being used to answer, rather than on how well it mimics the human disease.

So it would appear that animal models don't even have to mimic human disease, merely provide an answer to a single aspect about the disease. In fact that same site has a list of general rules for selection of animal models... notably absent from this list is the 'evolutionary relatedness' of the model.


Conditioning theories all stem from a knowledge that behaviour only differs by degree across species, ask Jospeh LeDoux how much his studies on fear conditioning in rats have helped us understand anxiety disorders such as PTSD. Pavlov, Skinner, and Watson decided that dogs, rats, and pigeons were good models for conditioning experiments, and I guess they accepted the similarities between human and animal behaviour/physiology to justify this. Behavioural therapies are dependent on these studies.

I don't deny the contribution that animal research has made to science. Rats, dogs, pigeons... what's the commonality there. Pigeons aren't closely related to humans at all, and they are yet a good model. IMO, this actually stands in direct opposition to what ToE would predict.


There is a wad of neuroscientific research on our relatives that will provide medical benefits for humans.

The word 'relatives' is merely an inference, not a fact.


And a friend told me that a study on fruit-fly casings actually provided an understanding of colon cancer (I know nothing about its validity as an example though, haha).

This stands in complete opposition to the first paragraph in your post where you stated:

why do we use mammals rather than insects, fish, or birds?

In fact, this stands in opposition to the pigeon example provided above also.


I suppose the obligatory creationist answer is "common design"...

Which in reality, is no more or less verifiable than is common ancestry.


But I think the important point is to actually ask - what has creationist/ID science ever done for our lives? Not just medicine, but in all aspects of improving our lives...

This isn't a scientific question... at least the 'all aspects of improving lives' portion. ToE hasn't contributed to medicine, and neither has CS or ID. Their origins theories, theories about how things came to be. I'm sure Johnson, Behe, or Dembski could come up with ways ID has improved their lives, and this is somewhat subjective. In any case, it's not likely that ID will contribute anything to our current base of knowledge... that is until the witch hunt is over, and IDists can publish their work without fear of reprisal. It's unlikely that mainstream science will permit ID to make a contribution to science.







[edit on 15-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Mein gott, the one good example we can use to show that ToE is falsifiable and we have an evolutionist denying its validity...


Glad you see the irony here!



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Because their systems are more closely similar of course. Obviously mammalian systems are closer to other mammalian systems than they are to bird systems, but WHY they are closely similar is NOT a fact.


But we have a good idea WHY they are so closely similar. The brain is a fantastic example, the rat brain is a good model, not perfect but useful, the closer we get according to the 'family tree' the closer the brain becomes. It doesn't need to be viewed as fact, but ToE justifies why a primate is a good model for neuroscience (and we do need to justify our choice of animal).


Forgive me, but what in the heck is a marm?


haha, sorry, marmosets.


Obviously because their systems are more closely similar. However certainly animal models, as your above post indicates, are often chosen for their tendency to exhibit a disorder that coincides with some human disease.


But I'm not really talking about diseases/disorders, just the neural similarities. A marm brain is great, they have a a decent frontal lobe, but an ape's is even closer to ours. Primates/apes are the best for neuroscience studies, and we know why - we don't look and think hey anything with four limbs will do. We don't even need to look at their brains, we have a reason to know this already. BUT we will if we can use a rat or a beagle, we have to justify why we use a primate otherwise animal libbers will be even more of a pain in the ass.


Certainly primates are more closely related to humans than are beagles.


That's all I am focusing on. If we are interested in how long-term amphetamine abuse affects the reward system and complex decision-making, a marm will be ideal, an ape fantastic, a beagle may suffice, a pigeon not at all. We could use them all for conditoning studies though, but not for studies that require complex decision-making.


Of course this isn't the case, most human diseases have a 'pet' research animal that 'models' a particular facet of disease. There are HIV mice, alzheimers mice, transgenic pigs for alzheimers, etc. There is really no consensus on which organisms are the best models for human disease. In fact, accoding to This site


The usefulness of a laboratory animal model should be judged on how well it answers the specific questions it is being used to answer, rather than on how well it mimics the human disease.

So it would appear that animal models don't even have to mimic human disease, merely provide an answer to a single aspect about the disease. In fact that same site has a list of general rules for selection of animal models... notably absent from this list is the 'evolutionary relatedness' of the model.


I don't doubt that. But I am focusing on the neuro aspect (which of course I'm comfortable with). We will use mammals for testing the limbic system, a bird will do, even a fish, they all have this evolutionary ancient structure. And this is the reason a pigeon will be sufficient for conditioning. Invertebrates will be no good though. But obviously all species have genetic similarities as seen in the colon cancer gene business.


I don't deny the contribution that animal research has made to science. Rats, dogs, pigeons... what's the commonality there. Pigeons aren't closely related to humans at all, and they are yet a good model. IMO, this actually stands in direct opposition to what ToE would predict.


No, but they have the neural pathways required for conditioning that enable simple SR learning. It showed that conditioning occured across many species and LeDoux's studies have shown us how subcortical systems guide fight and flight behaviour, however, the studies showed that complex learning is not the same as SR.

What you will see in the affective neuroscience literature is a good mention of Darwin's book "the expression of emotions in man and animals". There is a reason why - we can justify the work we do due to, I'll put this to satisfy you, 'inferred' relationship. And the results we are getting are fantastic. So if we want to study basic emotional behaviour we can use a rat; if we want to know about complex abstract learning, we'll use a primate (If you are interested in affective neuro and why ToE is guiding our studies, Panksepp's book "affective neuroscience" would be a good start - doubt you'd fit it in your probably chunky reading pile, haha).



There is a wad of neuroscientific research on our relatives that will provide medical benefits for humans.

The word 'relatives' is merely an inference, not a fact.


Well, as you know, all scientific theories are not truly proven or a fact. It is a theory and we find it useful to guide us in our decisions to model behaviour. And we are doing just fine so far.



And a friend told me that a study on fruit-fly casings actually provided an understanding of colon cancer (I know nothing about its validity as an example though, haha).

This stands in complete opposition to the first paragraph in your post where you stated:

why do we use mammals rather than insects, fish, or birds?

In fact, this stands in opposition to the pigeon example provided above also.


Maybe, as I tried to point out, I know nada about this research, it was just something I remembered. Apparently something to do with a similar gene?



I suppose the obligatory creationist answer is "common design"...

Which in reality, is no more or less verifiable than is common ancestry.


Except one does have more evidence than the other.


This isn't a scientific question... at least the 'all aspects of improving lives' portion. ToE hasn't contributed to medicine, and neither has CS or ID.


Yup it isn't scientific, more a practical question. And without doubt the data derived from ToE has been useful.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Here's an example of Jaak Panksepp's work on affective neuroscience...


Beyond a Joke: From Animal Laughter to Human Joy?

In the beginning was the word… but was the word funny? Research suggests that the capacity for human laughter preceded the capacity for speech during evolution of the brain. Indeed, neural circuits for laughter exist in very ancient regions of the brain (1), and ancestral forms of play and laughter existed in other animals eons before we humans came along with our hahahas and verbal repartee. Recent studies in rats, dogs, and chimps (2, 3) are providing evidence that laughter and joy may not be uniquely human traits.

The capacity to laugh emerges early in child development, and perhaps in mammalian brain-mind evolution as well. Indeed, young children, whose semantic sense of humor is marginal, laugh and shriek abundantly in the midst of their other rough-and-tumble activities. If one looks carefully, laughter is especially evident during chasing, with the chasee typically laughing more than the chaser. As every aspiring comedian knows, success is only achieved if receivers exhibit more laughter than transmitters. The same behavior patterns are evident in the “play panting” of young chimps as they mischievously chase, mouth, and tickle each other (2).

Laughter seems to hark back to the ancestral emotional recesses of our animalian past (3, 4). We know that many other mammals exhibit play sounds, including tickle-induced panting, which resembles human laughter (2, 4, 5), even though these utterances are not as loud and persistent as our sonographically complex human chuckles (6). However, it is the discovery of “laughing rats” that could offer a workable model with which to systemically analyze the neurobiological antecedents of human joy (3). When rats play, their rambunctious shenanigans are accompanied by a cacophony of 50-kHz chirps that reflect positive emotional feelings (7). Sonographic analysis suggests that some chirps, like human laughs, are more joyous than others.

Could sounds emitted by animals during play be an ancestral form of human laughter? We have shown that if rats are tickled in a playful way, they readily emit these 50-kHz chirps (3, 8). The rats we tickled became socially bonded to us and were rapidly conditioned to seek tickles. They preferred spending time with other animals that chirped a lot rather than with those that did not (3). Indeed, chirping in rats could be provoked by neurochemically “tickling” dopamine reward circuits in the brain (9), which also light up during human mirth (10). Perhaps laughter will provide a new measure for analyzing natural reward/desire circuits in the brain, which are also activated during drug craving (7, 11).

Deciphering the neural circuitry of playful chirping in rats is an important goal of future research. Such knowledge may help to reveal how joking and horsing around emerged in our expansive higher brain regions. Although no one has investigated the possibility of rat humor, if it exists, it is likely to be heavily laced with slapstick. Even if adult rodents have no well-developed cognitive sense of humor, young rats have a marvelous sense of fun. We have already bred rats that exhibit excess playful chirping (12), and thereby hope to track down some of the genes for joy. Perhaps we will even stumble on new molecules to alleviate depression as well as some excessive exuberance disorders (13, 14).

Research on rough-housing play in mammals, both sapient and otherwise, clearly indicates that the sources of play and laughter in the brain are instinctual and subcortical (1, 3, 8). Although our species-typical capacities for verbal joking surely reflect highly ref ined cortico-cognitive skills (15), those incoming words must somehow tickle the ancient playful circuits of our minds for joy to occur. As we learn “to rib” each other with words, as opposed to just rough-and-tumble horse-play, we may be developing new synaptic connections to joyous neural zones that reside far below our cerebral crowns. It has long been intimated that laughter has many health benefits as well (16)

Human laughter, however, has a dark and dominant side. According to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, “Laughter is nothing else but a sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves.” Experts compiling the DSMV psychiatric guidelines may wish to consider how excessive gloating laughter contributes to “eminent-domain” disorders worthy of more precise psychiatric diagnosis. New treatments for such disorders might include strengthening the capacity for internal silent laughter (17), one of the few remaining mental capacities that may be uniquely human.

Many still believe that emotional feelings, from joy to grief, are special capacities of the human brain, but as Darwin taught, it just ain’t so (18). The recognition of emotional feelings in our fellow animals should no longer be reflexively deemed an anthropomorphic sin (4, 8). Perhaps it is time for neuroscience to accept that animals are capable of many emotional feelings (8, 19) (despite the consternation that may cause for investigators who treasure the study of fear behaviors more than joy).

We find ourselves at the tall-tale end of an intellectual era when the animal mind was deemed nonexistent or impenetrable. Gentle Darwin was prescient when he coaxed us to see our own emotional nature as continuous with that of our fellow animals (18). By studying the many emotional “instinctual” behaviors and related learning capacities of other animals, we may develop excellent ways to fathom the neuroemotional foundations of human consciousness. Weighty data are tipping the scales of evidence in favor of ever more subtle affective conceptions of animal minds, Homo sapiens included (8). Although our emotional systems are neither uniquely nor intelligently designed, it is a blessing that we can finally understand their affective nature (19). As William Blake incomparably declared in Auguries of Innocence (1863): It is right it should be so; Man was made for joy and woe; And, when this we rightly know Through the world we safely go. Joy and woe are woven fine A clothing for the soul divine; Under every grief and pine Runs a joy with silken twine.

If the mental lives of other animals are also created from the neural threads of joy and woe (not to mention many other feelings), we may need to openly consider the nature of their affective brains in order to understand our own. This brings special responsibilities for the scientifically sapient savants among us (20, 21). Although some still regard laughter as a uniquely human trait, honed in the Pleistocene, the joke’s on them.

www.psychomedia.it...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join