Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
penultimatestraw

Creationism education bills

Recommended Posts

Then what's that stank fish smell that keeps following you through this thread?

 

 

That's Mensa.

 

And since it is so focking rare, I'm going to use the 7 font

 

 

1240, b1tches!

 

ETA-fock it, it's not working!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent some time reading your fuel pump thread at the range rover forums. That really sucks man. Here's the link: http://www.rangerovers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5784&start=75 ... you should bump it up to the top again. Many of these dealers and car companies sure don't treat there customers very well.

Hey Gepetto,

To re-rail this topic, what did you think of my list of three beneficial human mutations several pages ago (post 1098)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see GH posts because I put him on ignore. I just haven't seen anything of value from him; he acted like an immature sh!thead in this thread. I feel compelled to answer his question here, though, seeing as I see it after you responded to it.

 

My comment doesn't reference a thing about me hitting a woman. It's about someone hitting someone after - and only after - they've been hit first.

 

The analogy stands.

 

How did you see Gettnhuge's mysterious posts that you are talking about if you have him on ignore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you see Gettnhuge's mysterious posts that you are talking about if you have him on ignore?

 

 

Jeez Women, it was quoted..if you don't start paying attention you're going to get another RAP across the mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoted in my reply to GH. You seculars are all alike.

 

All of a sudden, penny's gotten kind of d1ckish.

 

Why are you trying to resurrect this thread, anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I thought my eternal life depended on choosing the "right" god, I might take it upon myself to learn a little about the other deities. Or do you just feel lucky compared to the other 2/3 of the world's population?

 

 

This is not a fair question for several reasons:

1. Most traits are polygenic, with multiple mutations necessary for recognizable phenotypic change to occur.

2. Human generation time is so long it is tough to practically track the numerous mutations in a prospective, controlled, and scientific manner. That's why I keep bringing up entities (notice I avoid the O word) which replicate/reproduce and mutate much more rapidly.

3. Almost every mutation will have some cost. Natural selection is about trade-offs based on fitness.

 

Nonetheless I'll throw out three prospects:

1. Sickle cell trait, a mutation which increases fitness against malaria. This altered gene is found in much higher frequency in those of African descent, in contrast to those of European descent. This may be the result of selection in malarious regions. Link1

2. CCR5 is a chemokine co-receptor which HIV uses to enter cells. Some people of European descent with a mutated CCR5 gene are relatively resistant to HIV infection. Unlike the sickle cell mutation, the reason this mutation was selected is unclear, as HIV has not been around long enough to promote the gene's evolution directly. But it is a beneficial random mutation nonetheless (in the appropriate environment, of course). Link2

3. Mutations in mitochondrial DNA regulation may be beneficial in aging. Link3

 

Thought I had responded to this. Good post. I don't have the time or energy to read that link about mutations in mitochondrial dna, not tonight anyway. The Sickle cell trait is beneficial against malaria, but not the greatest since so many offspring will develop sickle cell anemia and die. I think it's an accidental (yes, you could say evolutionary) solution to life in humans in areas high in mosquitos and resulting malaria which would also kill off those without the sickle cell trait.

 

CCR5 is a good example. It will be interesting what we learn about this occurrence in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of a sudden, penny's gotten kind of d1ckish.

 

Why are you trying to resurrect this thread, anyways?

 

I'm pretty sure he was joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of a sudden, penny's gotten kind of d1ckish.

 

Why are you trying to resurrect this thread, anyways?

 

Anyone that disagrees with you gets turned into that. I'm fairly sure he's just having fun at your expense, but he's also proving a point. Garshk...imagine if he actually had the gall to disagree with you for more than a page!

 

The horror! :overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that disagrees with you gets turned into that. I'm fairly sure he's just having fun at your expense, but he's also proving a point. Garshk...imagine if he actually had the gall to disagree with you for more than a page!

 

The horror! :overhead:

 

 

First off, he didn't disagree with me on anything, and second, you suck balls.

 

And you're a whackjob.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, he didn't disagree with me on anything, and second, you suck balls.

 

And you're a whackjob.

 

Hey, I understand Frank: you need to put things you don't understand and that challenge your conventions into nice little boxes that you can label with nasty names. Keep it up: whatever keeps you convinced you're sane and correct, right cupcake?

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll warn you as well. What was posted in another thread are names of people in my family. What you're involved in here is very far over a line; it is a line that MikeFFToday will not want crossed. That I guarantee you.

 

 

 

You think encroaching on my private life isn't threatening, Feeling? Keep it up, and you'll find out why that is over the line.

 

 

If I'm very far over a line....and Mike doesn't want it crossed...then why is it business as usual for everyone involved?

 

Dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of a sudden, penny's gotten kind of d1ckish.

 

Why are you trying to resurrect this thread, anyways?

I'm just kidding around. I am a (relatively) liberal, atheist teetotaler.

 

Although I didn't resurrect this thread, if its good enough for Jesus, who am I to judge? Plus it happened on Easter!

 

Thought I had responded to this. Good post. I don't have the time or energy to read that link about mutations in mitochondrial dna, not tonight anyway. The Sickle cell trait is beneficial against malaria, but not the greatest since so many offspring will develop sickle cell anemia and die. I think it's an accidental (yes, you could say evolutionary) solution to life in humans in areas high in mosquitos and resulting malaria which would also kill off those without the sickle cell trait.

 

CCR5 is a good example. It will be interesting what we learn about this occurrence in the future.

A beneficial mutation does not have to be beneficial in all situations, just beneficial under the pressures through which it was selected. And sickle cell trait doesn't pose a huge risk to infant mortality - at least not as great a risk as malaria does on the child making it to reproductive age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just kidding around. I am a (relatively) liberal, atheist teetotaler.

 

Although I didn't resurrect this thread, if its good enough for Jesus, who am I to judge? Plus it happened on Easter!

 

 

A beneficial mutation does not have to be beneficial in all situations, just beneficial under the pressures through which it was selected. And sickle cell trait doesn't pose a huge risk to infant mortality - at least not as great a risk as malaria does on the child making it to reproductive age.

 

No kidding. It poses a risk when the population becomes nearly all with sickle cell trait and easily pass on each of the recessive traits to their offspring resulting in offspring born with sickle cell anemia = death. This would be terrible for the future of the human population if all people without sickle cell trait died off. So thinking about it like that, it's not really beneficial to the population unless malaria were to become completely unavoidable for all people without the mutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for that information contained in Shapiro's e-mail to Mensa that will make our heads explode... Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No kidding. It poses a risk when the population becomes nearly all with sickle cell trait and easily pass on each of the recessive traits to their offspring resulting in offspring born with sickle cell anemia = death. This would be terrible for the future of the human population if all people without sickle cell trait died off. So thinking about it like that, it's not really beneficial to the population unless malaria were to become completely unavoidable for all people without the mutation.

If sickle cell allele is inherited through simple Mendelian inheritance, two people with sickle trait would expect 1/4 of their kids to have sickle cell disease, 1/2 to have the trait and the other 1/4 to be "normal". Sickle cell disease is not a uniform death sentence, nor is malaria infection in those without sickle trait. Natural selection and Darwinian evolution posit that given enough time, the frequency of the sickle cell allele will be higher than random chance alone if it confers a survival advantage. So if more people with sickle allele make it to reproductive age than those without it in malarious regions, natural selection of this random mutation is supported. When an equilibrium is reached between malaria deaths and sickle cell deaths (at least before reproductive age) the allele frequency has hit its evolutionary sweet spot (this is a balanced polymorphism when the heterozygote (SS trait) has an advantage over either homozygote (SS dz or HgbA ("normal")). This doesn't mean everyone has sickle cell trait, as clearly malaria exposure is not uniform. But it does suggest a selective advantage from the gene. How else do you explain the finding?

 

Also if you find sickle cell disease too morbid, what about other red blood cell mutations found at higher rates in malarious regions? Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is one example. Although it is X-linked, it still can be cause by a single (random) point mutation. And it is usually pretty benign, while conferring protection against severe malaria.

My link

 

G6PDH is the most common human enzyme defect, being present in more than 400 million people worldwide.[10] African, Middle Eastern and South Asian people are affected the most along with those who are mixed with any of the above.[11] A side effect of this disease is that it confers protection against malaria,[12] in particular the form of malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum, the most deadly form of malaria. A similar relationship exists between malaria and sickle-cell disease. One theory to explain this, is that cells infected with the Plasmodium parasite are cleared more rapidly by the spleen. This phenomenon might give G6PDH deficiency carriers an evolutionary advantage by increasing their fitness in malarial endemic environments.

 

As I said before, evolution is about trade-offs. Rarely (if ever) is a mutation favorable under all circumstances - that would require a priori knowledge of all of an organism's exposures/activities on the planet…like the kind of knowledge Santa has :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for that information contained in Shapiro's e-mail to Mensa that will make our heads explode... Anyone else?

 

 

I hear it's going to be bigger than the Mount Pinatubo data RP's holding back. :doublethumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people were asked "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?" 38 percent of the respondents accepted "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process."

 

Sixteen percent accepted "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

 

And 40 percent accepted "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

 

While four in 10 creationist Americans may seem like a lot, it's down significantly from just a decade ago. The study noted that "the 40 percent of Americans who hold the 'creationist' view that God created humans as-is 10,000 years ago is the lowest in Gallup's history of asking this question, and down from a high point of 47 percent in 1993 and 1999."

 

Frank Newport, a spokesman for Gallup, noted in a press release that "Americans' views on human origins vary significantly by level of education and religiosity. Those who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view. Those with college degrees and postgraduate education are more likely to hold one of the two viewpoints involving evolution."

 

Though there was of course a strong correlation between religiosity and belief in creationism, the poll found that about a fourth of those who rarely or never attend church reject evolution. The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted with a random sample of 1,019 adults between Dec. 10 and 12.

 

http://news.discovery.com/human/poll-belief-in-evolution-increases.html

 

 

40% of americans believe that the human race was created less than 10,000 years ago :shocking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sickle cell allele is inherited through simple Mendelian inheritance, two people with sickle trait would expect 1/4 of their kids to have sickle cell disease, 1/2 to have the trait and the other 1/4 to be "normal". Sickle cell disease is not a uniform death sentence, nor is malaria infection in those without sickle trait. Natural selection and Darwinian evolution posit that given enough time, the frequency of the sickle cell allele will be higher than random chance alone if it confers a survival advantage. So if more people with sickle allele make it to reproductive age than those without it in malarious regions, natural selection of this random mutation is supported. When an equilibrium is reached between malaria deaths and sickle cell deaths (at least before reproductive age) the allele frequency has hit its evolutionary sweet spot (this is a balanced polymorphism when the heterozygote (SS trait) has an advantage over either homozygote (SS dz or HgbA ("normal")). This doesn't mean everyone has sickle cell trait, as clearly malaria exposure is not uniform. But it does suggest a selective advantage from the gene. How else do you explain the finding?

 

Also if you find sickle cell disease too morbid, what about other red blood cell mutations found at higher rates in malarious regions? Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is one example. Although it is X-linked, it still can be cause by a single (random) point mutation. And it is usually pretty benign, while conferring protection against severe malaria.

My link

 

 

 

As I said before, evolution is about trade-offs. Rarely (if ever) is a mutation favorable under all circumstances - that would require a priori knowledge of all of an organism's exposures/activities on the planet…like the kind of knowledge Santa has :rolleyes:

 

1/4 th of offspring die. That is not advantageous in the long run and is not a good support for all of life to have evolved from one cell to complicated organisms. c'mon! :rollseyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/4 th of offspring die. That is not advantageous in the long run and is not a good support for all of life to have evolved from one cell to complicated organisms. c'mon! :rollseyes:

You are oversimplifying things.

 

Not all sickle cell disease cases die before adulthood, but in Africa it is pretty high:

My link

The greatest burden of sickle cell anemia (SCA) is in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where 75% of the 300,000 global births of affected children live[1], and estimates suggest that 50–80% of these patients will die before adulthood[2].

Mortality in malaria is very difficult to estimate, but the absolute number of deaths is way higher than sickle cell: My link

In 2008, there were 247 million cases of malaria and nearly one million deaths – mostly among children living in Africa. In Africa a child dies every 45 seconds of Malaria, the disease accounts for 20% of all childhood deaths.

Now not all these deaths are individuals without sickle cell trait, and there are a lot of other mitigating circumstances, most importantly HIV infection and malnutrition.

 

But what is most relevant is the evolutionary cost:benefit ratio of the sickle cell gene. In the end, if the chances of a child born with sickle cell trait making it to reproductive age exceed that of the sickle free kid in a malarious region, there is a selection advantage. Deaths due to sickle cell disease certainly factor into the allele frequency, such that an equilibrium is reached. I'll ask again, how else do you explain the unusually high prevalence of sickle cell gene (and other red blood defects) in malarious regions?

 

I'll also restate that evolution is about trade-offs, and the down side of sickle cell gene does nothing to lessen that concept in our evolution from simpler organisms. Or the role of random mutation in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is accurate, there would be evidence in every biological process in the human body and in all organisms. There should be tens of thousands of examples of it, but there isn't. Do you think we just haven't found them yet? Maybe, or maybe there just aren't that many examples because evolution is not accurate or evolution is given more credit for explaining the life around us than it really does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is accurate, there would be evidence in every biological process in the human body and in all organisms. There should be tens of thousands of examples of it, but there isn't. Do you think we just haven't found them yet? Maybe, or maybe there just aren't that many examples because evolution is not accurate or evolution is given more credit for explaining the life around us than it really does.

There are plenty of examples in many systems and organisms, just the time scale of evolution and the polygenic nature of most traits makes distilling it to the level of individual mutations problematic. Until a viable alternative with scientific evidence exists to refute/expound upon it, I'm content to extrapolate.

 

Remind me your alternative explanation for the answers I provided to your original question (3 beneficial random mutations)? How much science do you have to support the alternative? And how much faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of examples in many systems and organisms, just the time scale of evolution and the polygenic nature of most traits makes distilling it to the level of individual mutations problematic. Until a viable alternative with scientific evidence exists to refute/expound upon it, I'm content to extrapolate.

 

Remind me your alternative explanation for the answers I provided to your original question (3 beneficial random mutations)? How much science do you have to support the alternative? And how much faith?

 

I prefer to keep an open mind and not form conclusive opinions. As it is, evolution is a theory, not a scientific law. Macroevolution has not been proven. Creationism or Independent Design is based on word of mouth and words written in the bible over the centuries and is not backed by science, nor is it proven, but only faith based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to keep an open mind and not form conclusive opinions. As it is, evolution is a theory, not a scientific law. Macroevolution has not been proven. Creationism or Independent Design is based on word of mouth and words written in the bible over the centuries and is not backed by science, nor is it proven, but only faith based.

Ok, as long as you recognize ID/creationism for what they are; to each his own. :cheers:

 

I think you are ignoring or unaware of evidence to support macroevolution. This guy mentions some of the details, with some references to primary data: My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, as long as you recognize ID/creationism for what they are; to each his own. :cheers:

 

I think you are ignoring or unaware of evidence to support macroevolution. This guy mentions some of the details, with some references to primary data: My link

 

I have a biology degree and went to medical school, but I haven't learned anything about evolution since college and I took it back in 1996. I'll look at your link when I have some time. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump to see if IMM wants to add anything more now that some time has passed.

 

Wait....never mind.

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for that information contained in Shapiro's e-mail to Mensa that will make our heads explode... Anyone else?

 

 

Now we'll never know........ :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a biology degree and went to medical school, but I haven't learned anything about evolution since college and I took it back in 1996. I'll look at your link when I have some time. thanks

Wait a second, are you a doctor? Did you have time to peruse my link (sounds vulgar)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second, are you a doctor? Did you have time to peruse my link (sounds vulgar)?

 

 

No, he makes wooden puppets that turn into real boys. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second, are you a doctor? Did you have time to peruse my link (sounds vulgar)?

 

No; changed career path for multiple reasons. No; busy and then forgot about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he makes wooden puppets that turn into real boys. :music_guitarred:

He knows a thing or two about intelligent design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're involved in here is very far over a line; it is a line that MikeFFToday will not want crossed. That I guarantee you.

 

 

 

:overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationists are at it again - offering $10K for a "scientific" debate: My link

A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

 

Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

 

The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.

 

"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

 

A minitrial differs from a regular trial because it does not need to be held in a courthouse and does not require the presence of traditional court figures. Mastropaolo plans to have a bailiff and court reporter in attendance, along with the judge. Contest rules state that evidence must be scientific, which means it is "objective, valid, reliable and calibrated".

 

Mastropaolo believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically. "It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction," he said. :blink:

 

Mastropaolo started making public arguments in favor of creationism about 13 years ago, after reading an article about evolution in the newspaper. He has a PhD in kinesiology and taught biomechanics and physiology at a California university for more than 25 years. He is now a contributing writer at the Creation Science Hall of Fame, which is collaborating with him for the minitrial. The Creation Science Hall of Fame is a website, launched in February 2012, that honors those who have made contributions to creation science.

 

A majority of scientists disavow creationism, but a June 2012 Gallup poll showed that 46% of Americans believed in a literal interpretation of the biblical version of creation. Legislation to allow students to be taught religious versions of the creation of life is currently being considered in four states.

 

The Literal Genesis Trial contest would be held in a courthouse in Santa Ana, California and Mastropaolo has said he will create a list of potential superior court judges to decide the case. The participants would have to agree on a judge. Mastropaolo said that he hopes the trials can improve future debates between evolutionists and creationists by addressing the issue in a legal and scientific way.

 

"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo said. "We can read the transcript and not have have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationists are at it again - offering $10K for a "scientific" debate: My link

 

That's already done. I could do it now. I could do it even better with a google search and twenty minutes. So clearly there's a catch.

 

The only explanation to draw from Genesis's mistakes is that the bible is a human created text. If it were divinly inspired, it wasn't inspired by an entity with any knowledge of how the earth was created or one that knew someday humanity would be able to call 'BS' on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the year Shapiro finally gets into the Creation Science Hall of Fame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×