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.

 

Marketing the Evolution "Debate"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
.

The so-called "evolution debate" has all the earmarks of an industry-funded marketing campaign, generated by the Denial Industry.

The goal is yet another cover-up:

Chemical and other now-common contaminants in our world are causing microbes, humans, and other animals to mutate - with ever-increasing speed.

Mutations are the first step in evolution - and microbes evolve WAAYYY faster than people.

The situation is critical:

* New diseases are popping up with regularity, and there are NO cures or treatments

* Chronic disease is pandemic with "early onset" of "age-related" diseases and disorders (you figure out that contradiction for yourself)

* There is a pandemic of brain disorders in children - and the list goes on.


So the "evolution debate" was orchestrated to hide the facts:

Chemicals, drugs, and industry byproducts cause cellular and genetic mutations. And that's before we look at biotechnology and genetic engineering.

It's all about mutation and evolution - and industry caused it. What better way to avoid owning up than to blame God?

The "evolution debate" is about industry avoiding accountability and liability.



This thread will follow the format Umbrax established in his thread on Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.

BBL with more.


.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
so darwin was working for modern bio-tech conglomerates?

i can see the logic, but logic doesn't always mean it is true
many things can be logical

like, if you put buttered toast on the back of a cat, butter up, it should hover



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

so darwin was working for modern bio-tech conglomerates?




???

The point is - common pollutants trigger mutations and speed evolution.

Here's a quick primer on how it can happen:





How chemicals can speed up evolution

THE mystery of how human DNA evolves during someone's lifetime looks a step closer to being solved.

Researchers in Japan have found evidence that environmental agents that cause chemical changes to our DNA throughout life may increase the amount of shuffling and mutation that occurs within our DNA during the formation of egg and sperm cells. So exposure of our DNA to reactive chemicals may actually drive evolution by promoting genetic diversity in our children.

Yusaku Nakabeppu and his colleagues at Kyushu University in Fukuoka have shown that, if unrepaired by enzymes, a type of chemical damage called oxidation can reshuffle DNA's four basic building blocks - adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.





The really BIG problem?

Microbes reproduce and evolve billions of times faster than people. Which means they're WAAYYY ahead of us.


.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
.

The so-called "evolution debate" has all the earmarks of an industry-funded marketing campaign, generated by the Denial Industry.

The 'evolution debate' is for the most part, a non-existent thing as far as science is concerned. There are multiple science based apologetics movements, including Creationism, and Intelligent Design, but there is no real debate in the science community as to whether or not evolution occurs.

Indeed, the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the idea of common descent, there is no debate as to whether or not heritable variation occurs.


The goal is yet another cover-up:

Chemical and other now-common contaminants in our world are causing microbes, humans, and other animals to mutate - with ever-increasing speed.

I'm sorry. I must be missing something. Where exactly is the cover-up in this? It's a known fact that there are varieties of chemicals that are either mutagenic or teratogenic. You can download an MSDS sheet on pretty much anyone of them, and it will specify cancer hazard, etc. How is that being covered up?



Mutations are the first step in evolution - and microbes evolve WAAYYY faster than people.

Simply increasing the rates of background mutation actually do very little for evolution. There were entire research programs devoted to the concept of 'facilitated evolution,' wherein organisms were exposed to all kinds of mutagenic chemicals, and processes. The result of these experiments was a dismal failure. Very few usable varieties were produced, and in nearly all cases, they were the result of some variety of loss of function... plants that produce fewer oxalates, etc. In no case, did increasing the rate of background mutation result in a some bizarre new feature.


The situation is critical:

* New diseases are popping up with regularity, and there are NO cures or treatments

Indeed. However, microbes generally don't 'evolve' virulence genes. They're usually obtained horizontally... that is they're swapped back and forth between microbes. Increased and more frequent disease is as much a factor of social conditions... things like human-animal proximity, antibiotic usage, etc. To my knowledge there's no direct empirical evidence showing that increased virulence or increased disease is a function of increased mutation rates in microbes.


* Chronic disease is pandemic with "early onset" of "age-related" diseases and disorders (you figure out that contradiction for yourself)

* There is a pandemic of brain disorders in children - and the list goes on.

How is this related to the presence or absence of mutagenic chemicals in the environment?


So the "evolution debate" was orchestrated to hide the facts:

Chemicals, drugs, and industry byproducts cause cellular and genetic mutations. And that's before we look at biotechnology and genetic engineering.

Okay... but the problem with this is that evolution doesn't hide the fact that mutagenic chemicals exist. Like I said before, it's information that is widely disseminated. Your hypothesis would hold more water if the 'evolution debate' were indeed orchestrated by chemical co's or other related entities. That religious organizations spearhead these 'debates' argues against this.


It's all about mutation and evolution - and industry caused it. What better way to avoid owning up than to blame God?

Mutation has always existed. There's no empirical evidence showing mutation rates have increased over time, and certainly nothing demonstrating they've increased as function of industry presence or activity. If there is, I'd love to see it.


The "evolution debate" is about industry avoiding accountability and liability.

Industry is notably absent from this debate, theology however is not.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The point is - common pollutants trigger mutations and speed evolution.

Mutations that must affect cells that generate gametes to pass on heritable mutation. Must mutagens however, are not teratogenic, and most mutations that occur in an organism are not passed on to offspring. There are also levels of quality control at the gamete levels... sperm with genetic damage are significantly less able to survive and fertilize the egg.

In any case, an increase in the rate of mutation doesn't necessarily speak to an increased rate of evolution.


Here's a quick primer on how it can happen:


How chemicals can speed up evolution

THE mystery of how human DNA evolves during someone's lifetime looks a step closer to being solved.

Researchers in Japan have found evidence that environmental agents that cause chemical changes to our DNA throughout life may increase the amount of shuffling and mutation that occurs within our DNA during the formation of egg and sperm cells. So exposure of our DNA to reactive chemicals may actually drive evolution by promoting genetic diversity in our children.

Yusaku Nakabeppu and his colleagues at Kyushu University in Fukuoka have shown that, if unrepaired by enzymes, a type of chemical damage called oxidation can reshuffle DNA's four basic building blocks - adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.


This article contains no experimental data, and is merely conjecture. The cell in fact maintains a wide variety of complex and diverse repair mechanisms that are designed to obviate just such damage. In fact, the very idea that mutation is caused by random stochastic events is being challenged within the scientific literature. Google "James Shapiro 21st century evolution" and read some of his stuff. The cell is hardly a victim of random stochastic accidents.

The degree to which cells can tolerate genetic damage is demonstrated quite nicely by an organism called Deinococcus radiodurans. This microbe can withstand radiation levels 100's if not 1000's of times greater than most cells. In fact, its genome is frequently shattered into hundreds of fragments and then precisely reassembled. This isn't the only microbe capable of such 'genomic gymnastics.' While multicellular organisms can't tolerate this level of genetic damage for a variety of reasons, the example perfectly demonstrates the degree to which genetic damage can be repaired.

Shapiro has measured mutation rates far lower than what would be anticipated via random accidents, further supporting this idea.


The really BIG problem?

Microbes reproduce and evolve billions of times faster than people. Which means they're WAAYYY ahead of us.

Yes... however, microbes are not immune to selection pressure... which brings me back to the point that I've attempted to make a couple of times, an increased rate of mutation doesn't necessarily correlate into an increased rate of evolution.


[edit on 22-11-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallikak

Originally posted by soficrow
.

The so-called "evolution debate" has all the earmarks of an industry-funded marketing campaign, generated by the Denial Industry.

The 'evolution debate' is for the most part, a non-existent thing as far as science is concerned.




Exactly. The general public however, is not aware of this - and believes that there is a real scientific controversy.





The goal is yet another cover-up:

Chemical and other now-common contaminants in our world are causing microbes, humans, and other animals to mutate - with ever-increasing speed.


I'm sorry. I must be missing something. Where exactly is the cover-up in this? It's a known fact that there are varieties of chemicals that are either mutagenic or teratogenic.




Again, this thread is about how public perception is manipulated.

People are led to believe it's all a complete mystery. Many mistakenly believe that new genetic mutations resulting from teratogenic exposures were "carried in their bloodline" and derived from their ancestors.






Mutations are the first step in evolution - and microbes evolve WAAYYY faster than people.


Simply increasing the rates of background mutation actually do very little for evolution.




Point being - some of the mutations are successful.





The situation is critical:

* New diseases are popping up with regularity, and there are NO cures or treatments


Indeed. However, microbes generally don't 'evolve' virulence genes.




Picky picky.


I am addressing public perception, and attempting to be accessible...





* Chronic disease is pandemic with "early onset" of "age-related" diseases and disorders (you figure out that contradiction for yourself)

* There is a pandemic of brain disorders in children - and the list goes on.

How is this related to the presence or absence of mutagenic chemicals in the environment?




A quick overview, edited for length:


Chemicals impair kids' brains in 'pandemic' proportions

Industrial chemicals have impaired the brain development of children, knocked down IQs, shortened attention spans and triggered behaviour problems, says a new report that is calling for better regulation of 201 chemicals with neurotoxic effects. ...In a report warning of "a silent pandemic in modern society," a team from the Harvard School of Public Health says millions of children may already have been affected. ..."About half of the 201 chemicals that we list are high-volume production chemicals," says lead author Dr. Philippe Grandjean. The list includes aluminum and tin compounds, solvents like acetone and benzene, many organic substances and pesticides.

The report takes a global view of the problem, but Grandjean says there is no question Canadians are exposed and affected. ..."Most of these chemicals occur in Canadian chemical production, in the environment, in consumer goods," he says. He also says Canada stands out for exposure to the neurotoxin manganese, which has been used as an anti-knock agent in gasoline. ...Health Canada declined to comment on the report, published today in the Lancet, or say how widely used the compounds are in Canada. But the department is promising action on thousands of chemicals that were introduced into use in Canada without adequate toxicity testing.

The Lancet report says one in six children has a developmental disability, many of them learning problems, sensory deficits and developmental delays that affect the nervous system. Mounting evidence has linked industrial chemicals to such neurological disorders, and the report deplores the way the chemicals are "not regulated to protect children." ...There are "great gaps" in testing of the chemicals, and regulators will only restrict compounds if there is a "high level" of proof of damage and problems, the report says, adding this puts vulnerable developing brains at unacceptable risk.

***

Chemical pollution 'responsible for silent pandemic of brain damage'

MILLIONS of children worldwide may have suffered brain damage as a direct result of industrial pollution, scientists said yesterday. ...An explosive report from researchers in the United States and Denmark talks of a "silent pandemic" of neurodevelopmental disorders caused by toxic chemicals spilling into the environment. ...They include conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation and cerebral palsy.

The scientists identified 202 industrial chemicals with the potential to damage the human brain, and said they were likely to be the "tip of a very large iceberg". More than 1,000 chemicals are known to be neurotoxic in animals, and are likely to be harmful to humans.

The researchers made an urgent call to tighten worldwide controls, and for a "precautionary approach" to testing. ...Tough regulations being introduced by the European Union do not go far enough, said the researchers. In the US, there are only minimal requirements for companies to carry out safety tests on chemicals, which often go unenforced.








So the "evolution debate" was orchestrated to hide the facts:

Chemicals, drugs, and industry byproducts cause cellular and genetic mutations. And that's before we look at biotechnology and genetic engineering.

Okay... but the problem with this is that evolution doesn't hide the fact that mutagenic chemicals exist. Like I said before, it's information that is widely disseminated. Your hypothesis would hold more water if the 'evolution debate' were indeed orchestrated by chemical co's or other related entities.




That's exactly what I am saying. ...Religious organizations appear to spearhead these 'debates' - but the money comes from industry.

...The denial industry manipulates religious people to focus on "evolution" and "intelligent design" - to hide the evidence that pollution causes genetic mutations, and that it is now a crisis.


Sorry - used up my 10,000 maximum characters. More later.

.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Exactly. The general public however, is not aware of this - and believes that there is a real scientific controversy.

Indeed.




People are led to believe it's all a complete mystery. Many mistakenly believe that new genetic mutations resulting from teratogenic exposures were "carried in their bloodline" and derived from their ancestors.

The problem is that there is no way to conclusively show that any mutation was produced as the specific result of some chemical agent. There is simply no way to separate out the mutations that may have been caused by mutagens from those that were caused by mutator polymerases, etc.




Point being - some of the mutations are successful.

Yes, but my point was that the actual experiments that did increase the rates of background mutation didn't increase overall evolution within any particular species. IOW, the available experimental evidence, mostly in plants, seems to demonstrate that increasing the rates of background mutation doesn't result in faster evolution.





Picky picky.


I am addressing public perception, and attempting to be accessible...

Maybe, but the point is that microbes don't generally evolve those genes. Increased virulence doesn't appear to be a related to rates of mutation. Increased virulence has much more to do with horizontal transmission of genetic information... which is a highly regulated biochemical process, and distinctly not the result of chemical insult.






A quick overview, edited for length:


Chemicals impair kids' brains in 'pandemic' proportions

Industrial chemicals have impaired the brain development of children, knocked down IQs, shortened attention spans and triggered behaviour problems, says a new report that is calling for [snip]

Soficrow, none of those articles mentions mutagens or teratogens as far as I can tell. I did more or less scan them, but I didn't see either of those words.

Neurotoxins are another thread, this one is about mutagens.


That's exactly what I am saying. ...Religious organizations appear to spearhead these 'debates' - but the money comes from industry.

What? Where is the evidence to back that up. The main Christian apologetics organizations receive their money from Christian Donors. The ID movement is for the most part funded by the Discovery Institute, which to my knowledge isn't accepting money from Dow Chemical and Monsanto to discredit evolution. Where is the evidence that any science based apologetics organization is funded by chemical industry money?

.

..The denial industry manipulates religious people to focus on "evolution" and "intelligent design" - to hide the evidence that pollution causes genetic mutations, and that it is now a crisis.

To even consider buying into this, I'd have to see some evidence that Industry money was somehow influencing the policies and procedures of an apologetics think tank.


Sorry - used up my 10,000 maximum characters. More later.

10000? Man... I've got a measly 4000... how do I get 10000. I can go through 4000 in an intro alone.



[edit on 22-11-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Kallikalik-

There is NO doubt our world is in trouble.

BUT - if you want to debate the why's, wherefore's and details - feel free to start your own thread on that topic.

THIS THREAD is here to determine how industry funds the "evolution debate" - and identify the players.


The format will follow the one Umbrax established in his thread on Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.

Please do not attempt to argue or discuss theory. I will not be distracted further by such efforts.

Thanks,
sofi





posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
THIS THREAD is here to determine how industry funds the "evolution debate" - and identify the players.

Right then, let's see your evidence that such funding exists. In fact, let's see any evidence you may have connecting the 'evolution "debate"' with the chemical industry or chemically-induced, heritable mutations. Just be advised that your position will not be favoured by 'evidence' that cannot stand up to scientific and forensic scrutiny.


Please do not attempt to argue or discuss theory. I will not be distracted further by such efforts.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. It seemed to me that kallikak had the facts, and you were the one with the theory.

I don't have a position on this, by the way, so convince me.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Soficrow, I am extremely disappointed in your response to my posts.

It would appear that what you're requesting is more-or-less, "agree with my theory, or don't post in my thread."

Why bother posting an idea on a discussion forum if you don't want to discuss it?

Please clarify if I am mistaken.


Originally posted by soficrow
Kallikalik-

There is NO doubt our world is in trouble.

Okay.... I didn't dispute this broad fact. I disputed a bunch of specific details, with what I consider to be perfectly reasonable requests, and asked what your source was for belief. Pardon my rudeness.


BUT - if you want to debate the why's, wherefore's and details - feel free to start your own thread on that topic.

Why should I? You started this thread. I would think, based on the other postings of yours I've read, that your theory would be developed enough to the point where you could simply point someone in the right direction when information was requested.

I'll ask an even more pointed version of a question I already asked. If you aren't looking for feedback, or discussion about the merits of your idea, what was the point of this thread? It would seem, if you don't want discussion or dissenting opinions, that the purpose of this thread was to get people to post: "Wow, soficrow, you're right, you must be really smart." otherwise, what's the point?


THIS THREAD is here to determine how industry funds the "evolution debate" - and identify the players.


Okay, then perhaps you can tell me how this question

Where is the evidence that any science based apologetics organization is funded by chemical industry money?
or this statement

To even consider buying into this, I'd have to see some evidence that Industry money was somehow influencing the policies and procedures of an apologetics think tank.

don't fit into that description of yours above. Those are questions concerned with "how industry funds the "evolution debate" - and identif[ies] the players." Again, please correct me if I am wrong.



The format will follow the one Umbrax established in his thread on Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.

I looked at that thread, and people do respond to his posts. What is it that you want? All that I've done is make a specific request for information that you say exists. Isn't that the point of thread, posting that information in an effort to deny ignorance?


Please do not attempt to argue or discuss theory. I will not be distracted further by such efforts.

Well... I wasn't arguing I was asking questions. However the operative words here seem to be "do not attempt... discuss theory," I'll ask again, if you don't want to discuss your theory, why bother posting it in a discussion forum?



[edit on 23-11-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
My apologies - I stumbled on this one coming out the gate.

I have created a new thread to better focus on the topic, which can be found here.




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I would be interested if there was a link between the biotechnology industry and intelligent design, but on reading the new thread, I can't see any obvious link between this Hudson institute and the DI.

Maybe I'm missing something...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
This thread is being closed by request.

Soficrow has begun an updated version of the same topic here



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join