Why we need medical intervention.

reply to post by clintdelicious

The human body is a truly amazing thing. To think that it can not adapt to its natural surroundings is silly.

Well aside from the fact that it obviously means we aren't evolving, it also means that something is wrong.

IMO we shouldn't have to rely on adaptation to survive.

Have you ever heard of people talking about when they used to have hayfever, but then grew out of it? I also used to be allergic to long haired dogs and cats and dustmites as well and needed to use an inhaler for this. I haven't needed any treatment for this in the last 15 years and I have lived with dogs and cats this whole time and I know it wasn't magic that stopped me reacting to this, it just took my body some time to adapt.

Humans adapt to all kinds of situations just like other animals. People who think humans are weak and incapable of surviving naturally on earth don't know much about the capabilities of ourselves as a species

I don't doubt that there is a lot of things we can adapt to.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I was addressing the incorrect statement that primates do not get sick, which was part of the evidence being presented.

You mean apes and monkeys, because humans are also considered to be primates, well according to wiki anyhow.

I wasn't aware that I posted that primates don't get sick.
What would have been more accurate is that they don't get as sick as we do.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'll put it to you this way, I copy and pasted just the "A's" from wiki and got my postings removed by admin. There is so much sickness that humans endure that nothing else here on earth can measure up to it.

That is a very dishonest statement. You had that list removed because it is a T&C violation as I warned you and as the message says and not because there were so many.

You also forgot to mention I showed you that even a quick glance at that list many of the diseases were common to both human and other primates. So your list proved nothing.

You need to look up honesty

reply to post by colin42

That is a very dishonest statement. You had that list removed because it is a T&C violation as I warned you and as the message says and not because there were so many.

You also forgot to mention I showed you that even a quick glance at that list many of the diseases were common to both human and other primates. So your list proved nothing.

You need to look up honesty

Wow, colin outside the evolution channel, I guess I can't call you narrowminded anylonger.

The list is not dishonest colin, and the only reason it was TC'd was because it was a list, not because of its content your claiming to be dishonest.

Yes there are many, perhaps thousands, upon thousands throughout the alphabet. Within those are a small percentage that apes and monkeys also get. BTW, I know I told you this before, but humans are also primates according to wiki so you need to get up to speed on that.

You will never be able to convince me that monkeys and apes get anyhwhere near as sick as humans, its not possible.

reply to post by itsthetooth
I never said the list was dishonest. You implied it was taken off because it contained so many names (thats dishonest) when infact as I told you it was a tc violation and advised you to delete it before someone reported you or the mods saw it.

Again you cannot claim a percentage of what is common within primates as you did not do the reasearch.

My reply clearly says 'human and other primates' so I believe you need to work on your reading skills before you correct me. I have told you this on many occassions as others have as well.

You will never be able to convince me that monkeys and apes get anyhwhere near as sick as humans, its not possible.

And you think I care that you wish to remain neck deep in a swamp of ignorance? out of the five remaining illnesses I looked at four 3 were common to ALL primates and one was a duplication. Animals other than primates had not been factored in or illnessess suffered by other primates but not humans.

As you should be able to see but refuse too you have made another statement that holds no water and no evidence.

There is no doubt that we have become dependent on medical science. This is only however due to our insistence not to accept mortality like other animals do. In so doing we limit adaptations within our species, and encourage adaptations in those that cause us disease. Eugenics is a bad word, with many bad connotations, but if you think of in vitro testing for congenital diseases, and gene therapy, we arrive at the same conclusion.

If other animals are indeed more resistant to diseases than we are, it is mainly because our morals prevent us as species from taking the bad with the good, thus allowing the propagation of many ailments that would, in nature, be eliminated through natural selection.

reply to post by rom12345

There is no doubt that we have become dependent on medical science. This is only however due to our insistence not to accept mortality like other animals do. In so doing we limit adaptations within our species, and encourage adaptations in those that cause us disease. Eugenics is a bad word, with many bad connotations, but if you think of in vitro testing for congenital diseases, and gene therapy, we arrive at the same conclusion.

If other animals are indeed more resistant to diseases than we are, it is mainly because our morals prevent us as species from taking the bad with the good, thus allowing the propagation of many ailments that would, in nature, be eliminated through natural selection.

Well its not even that, when you say take the good with the bad, do you actually know just how much bad we face, compared to other species on this planet.
Here is an example, I posted just the ones that start with "A" and after several pages got a violation here.

We face an incredible amount of sickness and disease everyday, but most of us aren't aware of whats in all of our genes. Check out Lloyd Pye's human genetics, and see for yourself. Have a tissue ready, it might bring tears to your eyes.

reply to post by rom12345

If other animals are indeed more resistant to diseases than we are, it is mainly because our morals prevent us as species from taking the bad with the good, thus allowing the propagation of many ailments that would, in nature, be eliminated through natural selection.

If natural selection is suppose to eliminate many ailments, then we must not be naturaly selecting as we have over 4000 gross defects in our genes.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Exactly my point, we in our wisdom have chosen, through medicine, to forego natural selection.

reply to post by rom12345

Exactly my point, we in our wisdom have chosen, through medicine, to forego natural selection.

But that doesn't make any sense. Adaptation is a trait, or an ability, it has nothing to do with natural selection or things changing on a molecular level.

In order for your theory of adaptation to work, you would have to agree that evolution is actually a bug, and this bug is not only smart enough to know how to change our DNA but also smart enough to predict our future through adaptation.

In other words you are saying that evolution could foresee this need, and rather than tackle the problem through molecular changes, it chose to give us the adaptation trait, also knowing that this trait would be smart enough to fix this exact problem.

If you glance at "Adaptation" through wiki, you will see that there is a section credited to evolutionism, but that its separated, and only presented through an evolutionist. The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with adaptation, but in honoring the allowances for definition, it appears to have been allowed simply because this is what evolutionist claim.

The fact is there is not a single shred of evidence that proves that adaptation was ever connected to evolution, its simply a fabrication.

The ONLY way that it can be, is if evolution is driven by a bug or virus that we not only have never seen or detected, but is also so smart that it can predict our future through adding ability's, and change DNA, and grow new ability's as well.
It's just a little to far fetched for me.

try this

Natural selection is the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

I am of the belief that evolution is a very sound theory.

It is certainly evident that many afflictions are mitigated by genetic immunity.

reply to post by rom12345

Natural selection is the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.


I am of the belief that evolution is a very sound theory.

It is certainly evident that many afflictions are mitigated by genetic immunity.

The only way this could be possible, as far as it being non random, is through intelligence.

I completely disagree with the theory that we are evolving. I stand firm that we are devolving! Through medical advancements we are keeping the bad genes in the pool. Think about it. If some people didn't have glasses, they wouldn't be able to see their food to catch or a predator trying to eat them. Same argument could be made for any mental or physical defect in humans.

Now add our technology to the equation. It has made our lives easier, but has truly made us less intelligent. This is a whole new dynamic that is crippling our generations. So, I say we are devolving and medical advancements are to blame for this.

When I look immediately around me it is quite simple to see why people get sick and die much earlier than they need to. Look around you what do you see especially here in America?

While many of us may have been born with multiple deficiencies of many sorts passed on from those that gave us birth, most of what I see shortening life has to do with not recognizing *fully* what is needed in the present to bring our bodies (and minds) back into a balance that would prolong it.

In short our lack of proper adaptation to our immediate environment is killing us much more quickly.

reply to post by NoSoup4U

I completely disagree with the theory that we are evolving. I stand firm that we are devolving! Through medical advancements we are keeping the bad genes in the pool. Think about it. If some people didn't have glasses, they wouldn't be able to see their food to catch or a predator trying to eat them. Same argument could be made for any mental or physical defect in humans.

Now add our technology to the equation. It has made our lives easier, but has truly made us less intelligent. This is a whole new dynamic that is crippling our generations. So, I say we are devolving and medical advancements are to blame for this.

Well I too believe we are de-evolving, but for different reasons. Thats odd, I never looked at it like that. Your looking at it more though attrition, but there is some truth in what your saying for sure.

No doubt we have created some of our own problems.

reply to post by Tecumte

When I look immediately around me it is quite simple to see why people get sick and die much earlier than they need to. Look around you what do you see especially here in America?

While many of us may have been born with multiple deficiencies of many sorts passed on from those that gave us birth, most of what I see shortening life has to do with not recognizing *fully* what is needed in the present to bring our bodies (and minds) back into a balance that would prolong it.

In short our lack of proper adaptation to our immediate environment is killing us much more quickly.

Well you are correct, we aren't very proactive about health here in the states. Thats the down fall of western medicine. Totally backwords from asain medican. They know there stuff.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rom12345

 

Exactly my point, we in our wisdom have chosen, through medicine, to forego natural selection.

But that doesn't make any sense. Adaptation is a trait, or an ability, it has nothing to do with natural selection or things changing on a molecular level.

In order for your theory of adaptation to work, you would have to agree that evolution is actually a bug, and this bug is not only smart enough to know how to change our DNA but also smart enough to predict our future through adaptation.

In other words you are saying that evolution could foresee this need, and rather than tackle the problem through molecular changes, it chose to give us the adaptation trait, also knowing that this trait would be smart enough to fix this exact problem.

If you glance at "Adaptation" through wiki, you will see that there is a section credited to evolutionism, but that its separated, and only presented through an evolutionist. The fact is that evolution has nothing to do with adaptation, but in honoring the allowances for definition, it appears to have been allowed simply because this is what evolutionist claim.

The fact is there is not a single shred of evidence that proves that adaptation was ever connected to evolution, its simply a fabrication.

The ONLY way that it can be, is if evolution is driven by a bug or virus that we not only have never seen or detected, but is also so smart that it can predict our future through adding ability's, and change DNA, and grow new ability's as well.
It's just a little to far fetched for me.

Is that the metaphorical bug that you keep refering to as an anology, or are you going to claim evolution/selection as an actual bug like virus with dome sort of guidance or goal behind its actions?

The last I read you were claiming that all this talk of "bugs" was a mere analogy to help you to understand it....it doesnt work.

You really should stay away from evolution as you have no understanding of what it means or any of the contributing factors that can lead to a species evolving.

As for this post......merely your opinion and speculation. I have told you on other threads that I do not feel the need to constantly ram medicines down my neck, and I am a happy and healthy adult (yup....managed to get past puberty without the level of intervention you seem to think is required)

As for the bushman....glad you posted that crap about them being a different species here and not in.....oh, hang on, you did...and got totaly pwnd

reply to post by idmonster

Is that the metaphorical bug that you keep refering to as an anology, or are you going to claim evolution/selection as an actual bug like virus with dome sort of guidance or goal behind its actions?

The last I read you were claiming that all this talk of "bugs" was a mere analogy to help you to understand it....it doesnt work.

You really should stay away from evolution as you have no understanding of what it means or any of the contributing factors that can lead to a species evolving.

As for this post......merely your opinion and speculation. I have told you on other threads that I do not feel the need to constantly ram medicines down my neck, and I am a happy and healthy adult (yup....managed to get past puberty without the level of intervention you seem to think is required)

As for the bushman....glad you posted that crap about them being a different species here and not in.....oh, hang on, you did...and got totaly pwnd

Blah blah blah, I don't see you coughing up an links to prove otherwise. I never got pwnd, but I am seeing how you were so desperate that things weren't working out for you on the evolution channel so you thought you could make things work on this channel. You haven't proven anything, hows that working out for you?