- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri Bill Would Warn Parents of Evolution Boogeyman
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:10 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Even assuming accuracy in your new speculation, it contradicts the "definite" previous one.
I'll rephrase:
It definitely defies the idea of an omnipotent creator.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 2:14 pm
1
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:It is exactly this type of atheistic tinged idiocy wallowing beneath the cover of science that gives true science a bad name. It is exactly this kind of careless stupidity that serves to enable creationists to claim equivalence in argument.
You're right, I'll rephrase:
It definitely defies the idea of an omnipotent creator. It certainly doesn't argue against ANY sort of creator, but it does contradict the concepts of designers typically brought up.
And that isn't speculation regarding the appendix.
and just so you'll know, current thought is the appendix may serve to recolonize normal gut flora in cases of a die off. Could aid a person's recovery and survival from bad GI bugs like cholera.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:32 pm to NC_Tigah
My point wasnt scientific, it was philosophical.
A perfect, omnipotent creator, by definition, cannot create something imperfect without defying his nature. We have blatant imperfections in our anatomy and physiology. Thus, a perfect creator behind our creation is a paradox.
This is different from our bodies decaying into diseased states, this involves inherent biological qualities present from the moment of birth (and, if you believe in it, creation).
Thanks for filling me in
We have far more well known and efficient ways of recolonizing gut flora after antimicrobial depletion and wash outs. The appendixes ability to do it is inconsequential, and as Ive already stated there is no evidence that people without their appendix are any more likely to contract any illness.
A perfect, omnipotent creator, by definition, cannot create something imperfect without defying his nature. We have blatant imperfections in our anatomy and physiology. Thus, a perfect creator behind our creation is a paradox.
This is different from our bodies decaying into diseased states, this involves inherent biological qualities present from the moment of birth (and, if you believe in it, creation).
quote:
and just so you'll know, current thought is the appendix may serve to recolonize normal gut flora in cases of a die off. Could aid a person's recovery and survival from bad GI bugs like cholera.
Thanks for filling me in
We have far more well known and efficient ways of recolonizing gut flora after antimicrobial depletion and wash outs. The appendixes ability to do it is inconsequential, and as Ive already stated there is no evidence that people without their appendix are any more likely to contract any illness.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:35 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And that isn't speculation regarding the appendix.
quote:Ooooh that smell
My point wasnt scientific, it was philosophical.
Can't you smell that smell
Ooooh that smell . . .
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is exactly this type of atheistic tinged idiocy wallowing beneath the cover of science that gives true science a bad name. It is exactly this kind of careless stupidity that serves to enable creationists to claim equivalence in argument.
And for the record, evolution itself is independent of any religious or philosophical belief. It either is the mechanism for how we got here, or it isnt. The number of people who believe one way or another doesnt change that.
That being said, there IS a reason beyond simple arrogance why most scientists are largely areligious. Science has punched huge philosophical holes into the mainstream concepts of God and calls into question a creators ability to be perfect while simultaneously creating what we observe. Dismissing religion isnt merely a passing thought, most who were and are now not will tell you it took a larger and larger stretch of belief to merge science with God's supposed nature until they could no longer do it anymore.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Ooooh that smell
Can't you smell that smell
Ooooh that smell . . .
The point about the appendix being detrimental is a fact, not speculation.
The point that such a structure defies Gods perfect nature is philosophical.
You know this and are being intentionally obtuse.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:43 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:"We" also have antibiotics, jet airplanes, electricity, and nuclear bombs. "We" have a lot of things.
We have far more well known and efficient ways of recolonizing gut flora after antimicrobial depletion and wash outs
These guys didn't
all they had was an appendix.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:45 pm to NC_Tigah
By "we", I meant our bodies genius. Our bodies naturally replenish gut flora with far more efficient mechanisms.
Goodness, the people on this board are right about you.
Goodness, the people on this board are right about you.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
We have blatant imperfections in our anatomy and physiology. Thus, a perfect creator behind our creation is a paradox.
Not necessarily true. A lot of mainstream theologians would argue that Adam and Eve had perfect bodies before they fell from grace, and since then humans have had imperfect (and consequently mortal) bodies.
quote:
We have far more well known and efficient ways of recolonizing gut flora after antimicrobial depletion and wash outs.
Not really making your point very well. If different organs can step up and help out when needed, that's a positive design feature, not an imperfection, and it undercuts the idea that any organ is useless. That's true even if you believe the design feature was created unconsciously by evolutionary processes.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:52 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Not necessarily true. A lot of mainstream theologians would argue that Adam and Eve had perfect bodies before they fell from grace, and since then humans have had imperfect (and consequently mortal) bodies.
So Adam and Eve didnt have things like appendixes, poor eye design and recurrent laryngeal nerves? They didnt have wisdom teeth or unused DNA? All things arose after the fall?
Not to mention the fact that genetics shows beyond a shadow of a doubt humanity could not have arisen from just two people a few thousand years ago.
quote:
Not really making your point very well. If different organs can step up and help out when needed, that's a positive design feature, not an imperfection, and it undercuts the idea that any organ is useless. That's true even if you believe the design feature was created unconsciously by evolutionary processes.
This is not true. Minimal gain is not selected for if the gain is outweighed by detrimental effects, as it is with the appendix. Whatever minimal function it has has no identifiable longterm benefits compared to those without an appendix, but those with an appendix are much more likely to suffer from certain life threatening diseases than those without it.
A good example of this is the gallbladder. We dont require a gallbladder to live, and the gallbladder can end up giving you some pretty unpleasant conditions, but without a gallbladder people suffer noticeable side effects and related conditions often due to malnutrition and fluid loss through diarrhea. So, the gallbladder even with its possible deleterious effects would be selected for because it allows better aquisition of nutrients and its benefit outweighs its risks.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Our bodies naturally replenish gut flora with far more efficient mechanisms.
quote:Would you like to talk Sickle Cell Anemia and malaria next?
The new theory, proposed by surgeons and immunologists at the Duke University School of Medicine, says that people throughout most of human history lived in small, spread out groups. As a result, their contact with other people was far more limited than it is today in modern industrialized societies. Today, if a person's digestive tract lacks helpful bacteria, they can regain the needed germs from contact with large numbers of other people. In times when populations were less dense, and cholera epidemics purged large numbers of people's useful digestive bacteria, the appendix was able to restore the digestive system's supply of helpful germs.
"[The appendix] acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a co-author in the study. He said the appendix's location--below the one-way passage of food and germs through the large intestine in a digestive cul-de-sac--helps validate the theory. The worm-shaped appendage also acts to manufacture these helpful germs, Parker said.
Parker added that in less developed societies with lower population densities, the appendix may still be useful and rates of appendicitis are lower. However, regardless of the appendix's apparent function, Parker confirmed that those suffering from appendicitis should still have it removed.
Scientists not affiliated with the study have come out in favor of the theory. Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald said the idea was the most likely purpose of the appendix. "It makes evolutionary sense."
LINK
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:10 pm to Roger Klarvin
The point about the appendix being detrimental is a fact, not
speculation.
The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven for good bacteria
and thanks hog I now know nylon is an evolutionary cousin
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:11 pm to NC_Tigah
1: I never claimed the appendix had no function. If it didnt, we wouldnt still have one.
2: While the research is fascinating, the fact still remains that there is no evidence that those without an appendix are at higher risk of disease including no increased risk of antimicrobial enterocolitis. Additionally, your link did nothing to disprove my statement which you quoted. We replenish gut bacteria through ingestion of sustinance, through bacterial penetration through the rectum, trough spontaneous microbacterial processes which surviving bacteria use to quickly increase their numbers for mutual gain in the GI tract, through the gallbladder, etc.
3: The issue of a perfect creator creating imperfection is still on the table, unaddressed by you.
So adorable
Comparing the advantages of a heterozygous sickle cell trait to the human appendix reflects a poor understanding of both. Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell trait are at minimal risk from complications unless they live at very high altitudes or are in involved in extreme athletic exertion, neither of which applies to the people dying of malaria in Africa. Malaria on the other hand is extremely deletarious and common.
This is in contrast to the appendix, which provides minimal benefit but relatively significant risk.
2: While the research is fascinating, the fact still remains that there is no evidence that those without an appendix are at higher risk of disease including no increased risk of antimicrobial enterocolitis. Additionally, your link did nothing to disprove my statement which you quoted. We replenish gut bacteria through ingestion of sustinance, through bacterial penetration through the rectum, trough spontaneous microbacterial processes which surviving bacteria use to quickly increase their numbers for mutual gain in the GI tract, through the gallbladder, etc.
3: The issue of a perfect creator creating imperfection is still on the table, unaddressed by you.
quote:
Would you like to talk Sickle Cell Anemia and malaria next?
So adorable
Comparing the advantages of a heterozygous sickle cell trait to the human appendix reflects a poor understanding of both. Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell trait are at minimal risk from complications unless they live at very high altitudes or are in involved in extreme athletic exertion, neither of which applies to the people dying of malaria in Africa. Malaria on the other hand is extremely deletarious and common.
This is in contrast to the appendix, which provides minimal benefit but relatively significant risk.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:14 pm to mattloc
Answer my question.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:19 pm to Fun Bunch
He wont, because he cant.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
So Adam and Eve didnt have things like appendixes, poor eye design and recurrent laryngeal nerves? They didnt have wisdom teeth or unused DNA? All things arose after the fall?
Multiple problems with that argument. First, your alleged flaws in the human body have already been debunked by NC Tigah. Second, you're assuming that all of those features were detrimental in hunter-gatherer societies. Our bodies are built (whether you want to credit God or evolution or both) for a very different world from the one we have today, and the environment has changed too rapidly for us to evolve. So characteristics that may have been beneficial in the past are now detrimental.
quote:
Not to mention the fact that genetics shows beyond a shadow of a doubt humanity could not have arisen from just two people a few thousand years ago.
A 6000 year old earth is bad theology. The Hebrews didn't record genealogy the way we do today. We would say Prescott Bush begat George HW Bush, who begat Jeb, who begat George P. To the ancient Hebrews, it would have been perfectly acceptable to skip or combine generations, so they might say Prescott begat George P. The only way to arrive at a 6000 year old Earth is to apply contemporary Western genealogical standards to Genesis.
As far as the most recent common ancestor, it could be a lot more recent than you assert. I've seen population experts conclude that one could have lived as recently as AD 55. 20% of Irish males have Niall's Y chromosome. So it's definitely not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the MRCA lived more than a few thousand years ago.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:33 pm to Roger Klarvin
Im on a cell phone at a ball game, but its interesting that there was no attempt to address orphan genes and their role in evolution. Although the concept was ridiculed by Roger, I suspect it is that he simply doesnt know how to address
Orphan genes are protein-coding genes that appear in a single species. Because they appear only once in the evolutionary tree, they must have evolved relatively rapidly and their history cannot be traced back to early evolutionary history.
Orphan genes are protein-coding genes that appear in a single species. Because they appear only once in the evolutionary tree, they must have evolved relatively rapidly and their history cannot be traced back to early evolutionary history.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:36 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Multiple problems with that argument. First, your alleged flaws in the human body have already been debunked by NC Tigah. Second, you're assuming that all of those features were detrimental in hunter-gatherer societies. Our bodies are built (whether you want to credit God or evolution or both) for a very different world from the one we have today, and the environment has changed too rapidly for us to evolve. So characteristics that may have been beneficial in the past are now detrimental.
NC didnt debunk anything, he threw out a red herring that disproved nothing of what I have said. I have never said the appendix holds no function at all.
Second, I know our bodies are designed for a different time in a different world, THATS THE WHOLE POINT. We wouldnt have structures like those if that wasnt the case. Only evolution makes such things being present in humans possible, unless one subscribes to a rather poor creator God. Under no circumstance is a recurrent laryngeal nerve, for instance, beneficial to mammals. It isnt particular deletarious but represents a woefully inefficient method of getting nerve signals to our larynx to produce sound. It is a vestige of a time when we evolved from lower order animals who also have it and it did matter that they had it for complicated physiological reasons not worth getting into. It is no coincidence that all mammals have one despite it being inefficient.
quote:
As far as the most recent common ancestor, it could be a lot more recent than you assert. I've seen population experts conclude that one could have lived as recently as AD 55. 20% of Irish males have Niall's Y chromosome. So it's definitely not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the MRCA lived more than a few thousand years ago.
And one in seven people are believed to be descended from Ghengis Khan. You're talking about a completely different thing. Most recent common ancestor is NOT the same as all humanity arising from two people. A most recent common ancestor in 55 AD is certainly possible (though very unlikely) but all our genetic diversity makes it impossible to have arisen from two people. If we had, we'd have DNA like that of Cheetahs were essentially all Cheetahs now are now virtually identical to each other. Cheetahs had a genetic bottleneck tens of thousands of years ago that educed their population to just a few individuals (still more than 2) and they have zero genetic diversity because of it.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:37 pm to Roger Klarvin
These orphan genes are also being found to be particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with ecological niches in relation to the creature's interaction with its environment. The problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry
Posted on 2/22/14 at 3:40 pm to mattloc
quote:
Im on a cell phone at a ball game, but its interesting that there was no attempt to address orphan genes and their role in evolution. Although the concept was ridiculed by Roger, I suspect it is that he simply doesnt know how to address
Orphan genes are protein-coding genes that appear in a single species. Because they appear only once in the evolutionary tree, they must have evolved relatively rapidly and their history cannot be traced back to early evolutionary history.
I ridiculed it because it is unworthy of being addressed. It presents no challenge to evolution whatsoever.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News