The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

reply to post by nophun


Her are two. The second and Russian one has a map that equates to my spice route analogy. If you could set them up as a clickable link I would appreciate it.

Red-faced Asian boozers at esophageal cancer risk | Reuters
"Asian flush" raises esophageal cancer risks * Doctors should ask patients ... whose study appears in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine. ... He said the flushing response occurs in people who have a variation in the ALDH gene, ... Latin America, Mexico, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom, United States ...

www.reuters.com/article/idUSN23278161



[PDF]
Distribution of the Alcohol Dehydrogenase ADH1B∗47...
Svetlana Borinskaya,1 Nina Kal'ina,1 Andrey Marusin,2. Gulnaz Faskhutdinova,3 Irina ..... To the Editor: In their Letter to the Editor, Borinskaya et al.1 ...

www.medgenetics.ru/UserFile/File/Doc/Evolution%20Doc/... - Similar

- Similar

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Here is the most recent and best.

Red-faced from drinking? It could be an evolutionary advantage
Posted by TIME.com Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm
14 Comments • Trackback (13) • Related Topics: alcohol
Lots of people get flushed in the face when they feel embarrassed, but for many Asians it's the facial flush itself that can be embarrassing.

About half of all people of Asian descent share a genetic trait that causes a prompt reddening of the face in response to drinking alcohol — the result of an enzyme deficiency that interferes with alcohol metabolism and causes the temporary build-up in the body of a toxic chemical product. For some, the red face is a mere nuisance; for others, it can be accompanied by symptoms such as rapid heartbeat and skin swelling. Talk about a buzz-kill.


Now researchers speculate about why East Asians have the flushing gene in the first place. According to a new study in BMC Evolutionary Biology, the genetic mutation that causes the reaction first appeared about 10,000 years ago in Southern China, at about the same time residents began farming rice along the Yangtze River. The study's authors hypothesize that the alcohol intolerance associated with facial flushing may have evolved as a survival strategy enabling ancient populations to enjoy the positive effects of alcohol derived from fermented rice — it can be used as a disinfectant and preservative — while imbibing in moderation. "This is one of the few cases reported demonstrating the genetic adaptation of human populations to the dramatic changes in agriculture and diet during Neolithic times," said Bing Su, one of the study's co-authors from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in a press release about the study.

By sampling DNA from 38 distinct Asian populations from relatively isolated provincial areas, ranging from Han Chinese to Tibetans, researchers observed that the flushing gene was much more prevalent in groups that began farming rice the earliest. For example, while the mutation appears in nearly 70% of Han Chinese, who began farming rice 7,000 to 10,000 years ago, it shows up in only 14% of Tibetans, whose rice culture developed later. Molecular dating of rice found in ancient pottery has enabled anthropologists to determine when rice farming began in different regions of the continent.

While the red-faced alcohol response can be annoying, it may also be beneficial to populations on the whole, as it appears to be associated with lower rates of alcoholism. In fact, the drug disulfiram, which is used to prevent relapse in recovering alcoholics, has some of the same biochemical effects as the flushing gene does when it is expressed. — By Anita Hamilton

Originally posted by nophun
Is this is where you say science is not sure .. so ...

God did it.

More of it's yesterday last hope that got redefined when thought undefined it the worst possible way...

...oh and someone missed this beautiful spot there...

...same old that way gone that way.

Kinda interesting that when some real genetics are brought into the arena there is merely science.
Huuuuuumm!!

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Next thought, someone created a website just to explain Ascend, Transcend, or Sacrifice, and the entire political issues that surround all the subjects.

Then maybe they grasp the significance between conspiracy fact and conspiracy theory, and that the word conspiracy is science itself.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


Yeah, something smells anphibious around here.
I will reserve comment for awhile. Boys are most likely out to church or in the confessional .

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Amphibious, indeed, unless someone actually read alchemic sources before they really devouted themselves to churches. Another big elephant in the room of why churches try to separate themselves from such alchemic sources.

It follows separation of powers, and power is knowledge. If none of mainstream science and religion can't simple see that 'God' never created anything on the 8th day, then it's just a matter of time when they 'so created' may want to ask themselves the 'perfect' question. It remains undefined.

Oh, and tomorrow is the 8th.

Want a kit kat?

reply to post by nophun


# Evolution is just a theory not fact.

Evolution IS just a theory... Plenty of things support it, but nothing proves it.

# Carbon dating is wrong.

Carbon dating has been found to be inaccurate past 10,000 years. Besides, if the same carbon atoms are present in a live speciment that can be found in a fossil, whats the difference? If a million year old carbon atom is found in layers of dirt, I'll bet you my next paycheck that I have carbon atoms that are just as old in my own body. So, how does it work accurately?

# There is no evidence of Evolution.
# The gaps, the gaps!
# Cambrian explosion.
# Crocoduck has STILL not been found.

There are no links. Nothing that suggests an evolving single species in the intermediate states of evolution. Sounds more like they were once there, but just now extinct, wiped out.

# Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints)

Creationists believe we came from a place in the middle east, which is now under water where the Tigress and Euphrates continued to flow. Most fossils that are found seem to be in exclusive areas and a lot of them aren't where that creationist civilization began. According to creation: we had intelligence. I would think that wandering out into the domain of a dinosaur would have been considered stupid.

# fossils do not show ancestry.

Nope they don't. They only show where things were at one time. Kind of like a time map.

# The second law of thermodynamics.

And what about it?? It is theorized that the universe (everything) is in the shape of a dodecahedron (IIRC), and therefore is finite. If creation was done by the Big Bang, which is quite likely, then the second law is still in progress as everything is equalizing. There is speculation that the universe is starting to shrink... Makes you wonder if the Big Bang hit the walls and is bouncing back into itself like a contained explosion. Anyway, so what's your point??

reply to post by dzonatas


Just a piece of that kit kat bar!!

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by NorthStargal52

 

Or, if we stick to science, we are entirely 100% terrestrial in origin as a species.

I guess you don't keep up with the scientists. They just claimed the Horse Head Nebula has all the crap waiting willing and able.

Here is a comment on another thread by nophun
The last I can find here on ATS.

"I would hit them. No other way to put it.
First time one of these geeks approached me in my personal life would be the last."

The thread is about a Christian group in Texas.
I don't think he is interested in genetics in the least. This proves that he is more a Christian basher.

Look for his type behavior in other posters.
Is this a trap?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Luckily for science, anyone can hold any position they want outside of the scientific debate, as science doesn't deal with who's speaking, but what they are saying.

For example, in a scientific debate a guy is not more correct if he has a bigger, sillier hat on.

And while we're on what we all think, I'm forming the belief that you are a science-basher. See how that works? Lovely stuff!

reply to post by wayaboveitall

Theorys of abiogenisis (and there are a few) Are called Theorys for a reason, and have less evidence going for them than TOE and cannot be replicated ,thus proven.

Not correct. There is not yet even one accepted Theory of Abiogenesis, let alone 'a few'.

There are quite a few abiogenisis hypotheses, but none have yet reached 'theory' status.

There is quite a bit of work going on to reconcile the candidate hypotheses and move toward a "Theory of Abiogenesis" and they may be getting close, but who knows?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by NorthStargal52

 

Or, if we stick to science, we are entirely 100% terrestrial in origin as a species.

I guess you don't keep up with the scientists. They just claimed the Horse Head Nebula has all the crap waiting willing and able.

Here is the heart of all major religious wars in that perspective. Even if they include books of science in religious, also. It's easy to consider any of it as philosophy.

The main point, however, is that typical ignorance exists apropos to that heart where any terrestrial evolution attempts to combine with extraterrestrial evolution.

When I watch interviews like Loose Change and consider debate around the LHC, the same ignorance exists, like there are attempts to forcefully get people to 'just accept' evolution on this planet as fully understood.

That is why I pointed out the leather cover of the bible and how we can easily deny ignorance and study what species is that cover. How many scientist ignore the bible and toss it aside and simple ignore any study on the cover. There are obvious ignorances.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


And so what? What does that prove? Nothing - just that the ingredients for life also exist there.

Your reading comprehension seriously needs some work. Or can the ingredients for life only exist in one place in the universe? Ha!

reply to post by dzonatas


I would love some of what you are smoking. That made no sense. It was a string of loosely-connected ideas, strung together to try to bring down "science". Highly bizarre.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Look for his type behavior in other posters.
Is this a trap?

The difference is the comments are not being directed at any particular poster.

After I read through this entire thread and the responses and makes a case for how some have created science 'gods'. Anybody that questions anything of that science 'god' gets humiliated and intimidated.

Even if science debunks most of religion, there still are these science 'gods' left to debunk.

EDIT: To debate about the science 'gods' and discover their evolution is like a 'stake' in the 'heart'.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


There are no science "gods", only the scientific method, which would correct itself should it be wrong. Unlike religion, which will just lash out and kill people if it's wrong. Yay religion. Woo.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

There are no science "gods", only the scientific method, which would correct itself should it be wrong. Unlike religion, which will just lash out and kill people if it's wrong. Yay religion. Woo.

If scientist decided to create a virus that infected everybody on the planet and made in order to maintain power over the people, then that would be a science 'god' when such virus is used to create adversity.

Such adversity made by science is no different than how you said 'which will just lash out and kill people if it's wrong', an that is where science is like religion.

Our science is well beyond old technocracy and progenitor debates. If you think it is just 'smoking' something, then go ahead and devolve to figure out the difference.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

There are no science "gods", only the scientific method, which would correct itself should it be wrong. Unlike religion, which will just lash out and kill people if it's wrong. Yay religion. Woo.

Who the heck do you think you are kidding here?
Jesus is and was a totally major adjustment to religion.
You fail again.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

There are no science "gods", only the scientific method, which would correct itself should it be wrong. Unlike religion, which will just lash out and kill people if it's wrong. Yay religion. Woo.

Who the heck do you think you are kidding here?
Jesus is and was a totally major adjustment to religion.
You fail again.

So christianity has been perfect since jesus came about?