|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any proof of beneficial mutations? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
If everyone who thinks that bacteria are good examples of evolution in action, how do you explain the fact that we have studied billions upon billions of generations of bacteria, and they haven't evolved at all, they are still the same old bacteria, over and over and over again. if it takes billions of generations and nothing changes, what makes people so readily fantasize that with enough time anything is possible-we have already seen enough time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
That aren't new and they aren't really even new bacteria. They generally tend to revert back to their same old ways of doing things as soon as the diet changes again. And so what is this telling us?
In a zillion billion generations we know we can go from bacteria not eating nylon, to bacteria eating nylon, to bacteria going back to not eating nylon. So what inferences can we make about future evolutionary changes based on this model? The answer is that in another zillion billion generations they might still be eating nylon or not eating nylon. We are not getting very far for a zillion zillion, billion billion generations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Some people can drink milk and some can't, I think its stretching it to say they are new people.
Besides, where doe the inference lead us? It leads us away from the likelihood of new structures arising in a given period of time, not towards it. If we study a gazillion billion trillion million generations and the most novel thing is they eat different food, what can we extrapolate with time? That there is not enough time or generations during the entire existence of the planet to do what you are claiming, that's what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Time? A zillion billion generations to maintain the exact form, the exact same structure? How much time do you want?
If you use bacteria to prove your theory works, you fail. Bacteria proves that all the mutations in the history of time are not enough to do anything more than keep a bacteria a bacteria. Now matter how many generations we study they never do anything more than change their diets. People who don't drink milk are still people, and bacteria that eat nylon are still bacteria. The laws of probability say that every mutation that ever could happen to bacteria has already happened many times. Bacteria proves the theory must be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Once a microbe species was observed to evolve true multicellularity. Full disclosure, please show your evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Greyseal,
Do you know specifically what does the mutation that makes one immune to Aids do? My understanding is that there is not even a clear definition of what Aids actually is, so I think to say that one mutation can make someone resistant to something we can't define seems a little unclear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
This is quite wrong. AIDS is well understood in terms of what it is, and what causes it. In fact, compared to most diseases, it is extremely well studied. So what do you think when people such as Rebecca Culshaw (a PHD mathematical biologist, whose work involves mathematical models of HIV) and others say things like "phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy." and: "The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men. In the two decades intervening, it has evolved into something quite different. AIDS today bears little or no resemblance to the syndrome for which it was named. For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever. More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past several years in the United States have been made on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed" positive antibody test — in other words, a deadly disease has been diagnosed over and over again on the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years. The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS cases increased rapidly from their initial observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since the advent of widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual mortality rate of North American HIV-positives who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much higher — between 6.7 and 8.8% — than would be the approximately 1—2% global mortality rate of HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year. Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began. " Do you think people who say this are lying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I am saying that there are people whose job it is to study these diseases who say that the links between Aids and HIV are not so simply defined, and that plenty of uncertainty exists-so I find it to be imprecise and misleading when Wounded King or Mr. Jack make these kind of blanket statements that the disease is perfectly understood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I answered this in post 116, start by reading that and refute it is you wish.
I see a similar pattern of posting here, where people want to just say things like 'It is a known fact..." when the only fact is that people here like to say it is a known fact a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well so far you have given one mathematician who did a PhD,... Is it a numbers game? if it is then I guess I am ahead one to zero. Instead of making some off the cuff comment immediately attempting to discredit someone you know nothing about, wouldn't it be a more beneficial use of your debate strategy time to simply refute the things that she said that you disagree with and why, instead of just guessing that she must be an unworthy authority? What's your authority? Bolder-Dash - 1Woundedking-0 Also, its a bit late in the game to call this off topic, when others have used the Aids situation to comment on beneficial mutations and thus the entire status of Aids disease becomes part of that conversation, to question the conclusions drawn from its evidence. Bolder-dash-2Woundedking-0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY A FEW SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the Hiv-Aids theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least. Excerpts: Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests: As a scientist who has studied AIDS for 16 years, I have determined that AIDS has little to do with science and is not even primarily a medical issue. AIDS is a sociological phenomenon held together by fear, creating a kind of medical McCarthyism that has transgressed and collapsed all the rules of science, and has imposed a brew of belief and pseudo-science on a vulnerable public. Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of California The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma is the grandest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the Western world. AIDS is a cruel deception that is maintained because so many people are making money from it. Take away this money and the entire system of mythology will collapse. Sunday Times, London, 3 April 1994 I think that Duesberg and Root-Bernstein have it right [about what causes AIDS]. Anything or process that destroys the individual’s ability to mount an immune responseThis could be the use ofcocaine, heroin, amyl nitrite (poppers), amphetamines...malnutrition and lack of essential vitaminsbeing the recipient of whole blood or blood productsrepeated and multiple infections [all] are immunosuppressive. Dr. Charles Thomas, PhD, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. Former chair of the Cell Biology Department, Scripps Research Institute I do not believe that HIV, in and of itself, can cause AIDS. New York Daily News Sep 20, 1993 The assumption was made in 1984 that HIV caused AIDS and this has scarcely been challenged since. We don’t really know if HIV causes AIDS, nor have we seriously tried to find out. Virusmyth.net, Nov. 1991 It will surely lead to a scientifically healthier society if the burden of proof for HIV as a deadly pathogen is returned to where it belongs to those who maintain that HIV causes AIDS and others are allowed to pursue alternative approaches in the battle for eradication of the disease. Nature, 20 April 1989 ................ Bolder-dash- 2003 and countingWoundedking-1(?) Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Oh, sorry I didn't see that.
Got it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024