Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why can creationists give straight answers?
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 56 (15157)
08-10-2002 1:02 PM


Occasional particiapant YEC Fred Williams simply cannot or will not respond to simple, direct questions. In a thread on the Baptist Board, Williams has repeatedly been asked a simple, straightforward question (one that I have asked him probably dozens of times):
"What is the evidence that 1667 beneficial mutations can’t account for human evolution? You can end this debate by putting your cards on the table. I think it is becoming clear to everyone that you are holding no cards, so you have no choice but to bluff and misdirect."
(see http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_to...)
Williams' response?
"But common sense alone suggests that 1667 beneficial changes is way too low given that there are at least 30 million bp differences separating us from chimps (more on this below). Yes, many of these may be neutral differences, but only 1667 beneficial? I don’t think so. I think it’s a pipe-dream to believe otherwise, but I cannot prove it and never claimed I could."
So, Williams 'admits' that there is no support for his repeated (and borrowed) mantra. Does anyone think this will stop Williams from repeating his assertions over and over ad nauseum?
Of course not.
Williams makes a number of errors and false claims in his latest reply there, which I will expose shortly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 08-10-2002 1:20 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 08-10-2002 2:14 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 4 of 56 (15203)
08-11-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
08-10-2002 2:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Scott,
Hasn't the mutation "limit" been shown to be exceeded experimentally anyway?
That is, that the maths that the 1667 beneficial mutation limit was derived from, has been shown to be wrong in studies on other organisms?
Not sure if I'm confusing two different things.......
Mark
Hi Mark,
Haldane's model (from where the 1667 thing comes from) was a theoretical model devised in the late 1950s which 'limits' the speed of adaptive evolution to 1 beneficial allele per 300 generations. The model entailed what I (and many others) believe to be unrealistic assumptions, such as a constant population size and selection always being minor. Of course, the model had a lot going for it, too, though Haldane himslef admitted that his numbers would probably need 'drastic revision.'
ReMine latched onto "Haldane's Dilemma" as it became known and made much of it. ReMine, as Williams and John Paul have done repeatedly, simply asserts that 1667 beneficial mutations and some number of neutral ones is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor.
For this repeated assertion, they provide no evidence whatsoever - indeed, Williams finally admitted as much in the thread I linked to.
But the assertion begs some questions - what was the ancestor? How many mutations are required to account for various phenotypic changes? ReMine, nor any of his followers (whom, interestingly, all seem to be engineers like he is) has even attempted to address this issue.
That is, theirs is an argument based on ignorance.
As to the question, there are some documented examples of Haldane's 'limit' being exceeded, and, contrary to ReMine's claims, the issue had been discussed frequently in the literature and at conferences over the years, and many talented and knowledgible geneticists have provided 'solutions' premised on more realistic scenarios which have gone ignored by the Dilemma mongers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 08-10-2002 2:14 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 08-11-2002 2:18 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 56 (15204)
08-11-2002 1:34 PM


Oh - as for replying at BB -
http://geocities.com/huxter4441/baptist.html
easier to win the debate when you don't allow the opposition to take aprt...

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 56 (15209)
08-11-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
08-11-2002 2:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Scott,
Thanks for the reply.
So basically, Haldanes "limit" of 1 beneficial allele fixed/300 generations has been shown false.
Thats the rubber hen... It has been shown not to apply is some circumstances, but its general thrust is claimed by many to be intact (though not a 'dilemma').
quote:
In that case the model has been clearly found wanting, so (rhetorical question imminent) how can you form an argument claiming a falsification, when the model you get that falsification from, is shown to be faulty?
Indeed.
quote:
IMO, Scott, you needn't have asked the question "do we know that 1667 beneficial mutations weren't enough to separate man from chimps?" Since the question is already moot.
Well, that is not really the question, at least when applied strictly to Haldane's Dilamma as portraye dby the YECs. The question is Is 1667 fbms enough to account for humans from an ape-like ancestor which would have also been the ancestor of chimps.
quote:
Whilst I'm at it, it has just occurred to me that it's 1667 ben. mut. to go from a common ancestor of humans & chimps, to humans & chimps. This assumes that chimps ARE the common ancestor of man, & have had no beneficial mutations fixed themselves. This means you should roughly double the figure, since the chimps are getting 1667 be. muts. as well, not just humans. So wouldn't there have been 3334 fixed beneficial alleles in the two species from divergence (according to Haldane in '57), or has this been taken into account?
Hope that made sense
Mark
[Added missing close quote. --Admin]
While it is obviously useful to examine chimps as well as humans in pursuing this issue, ReMine insists that it is irrelevant. Chimps, of course, are under the same pressures (or rather their genomes are) that we are, and so would have experienced substitutions and such just like us, as you say. But they are not our ancestors any more than a person's cousin is their ancestor.
[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 08-11-2002 2:18 PM mark24 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 13 of 56 (15300)
08-12-2002 2:47 PM


The 1667 figure represents only fixed, beneficial (adaptive) mutations. These are not necessarily point mutations (indeed, many are probably not), nor are all of them necessarily in coding regions.
Neutral mutations (those changes that do not affect fitness) can reach fixation in a population at a rate comparable to the rate of occurrance of these mutations, that is, at a much higher rate than adaptiove mutations.
Then, of course, there are intraspecies polymorphisms which do not necessarily affect phenotype.
So, when we look at a human and a chimp genome, they differ by about 1.1%, or roughly 35 million bps total.
Which means that roughly 17.5 million of these will be in each lineage, many of which are polymorphisms, most of which are neutral.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 08-13-2002 6:17 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 16 of 56 (15445)
08-14-2002 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Fred Williams
08-13-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
Scott: The 1667 figure represents only fixed, beneficial (adaptive) mutations. These are not necessarily point mutations (indeed, many are probably not), nor are all of them necessarily in coding regions.
Why would many probably not be point mutations? From what we know of mutations, by far the best candidates are point mutations because 1) they are the most frequent, 2) the other types are far more likely to be harmful. Regarding transposons (which are also infrequent), they give all the appearances of non-random mutation. I think very few would be non-point mutations.
Frankly, considering the fact that you 'think' that the ancient Hebrews knew all about bacteria (see the "Medical Evidence" section at the "Bible Evidences" link - it is all pretty funny!) because in Leviticus they are told to wash the tapestries in the home of the leper, I am not all that concerned about what you think.
However, I admit that 'many' is not an accurate depiction. 'Some' is more in line. However, if we consider all mutations, then I would argue that indels contribute the largest per site numbers. For example, see this alignment. Follow the sequence for "Cja" (Callithrix jacchus) for about 300 bases. You will see a point at which Cja appears to have recieved an insertion of about 115 bases in length. This sort of occurrance is commonplace, especially in intergenic DNA and to a lesser (though not always - see the same alignment) extent in introns. Williams may now try to insert his recent claims about the functional importance of introns, but it is irrelevant. It has long been known that introns contain conserved sequence, particularly at the 'ends', where spliceosomes form on the mRNA transcript, for example. Obviously, mutations there can impact the expression of the protein. If the protein is involved in development, well, by golly...
quote:
Scott: Neutral mutations (those changes that do not affect fitness) can reach fixation in a population at a rate comparable to the rate of occurrance of these mutations, that is, at a much higher rate than adaptiove mutations.
Fred:
This is not necessarily true. [SNIP most of attempt to make a point and fail]...I’d love to see him try to support this claim mathematically!... I’d be curious to know if Kimura or anyone else ever attempted this calculation ....
Kimura, M. 1987. "Molecular Evolutionary Clock and the Neutral Theory."
"If the mutant is selectively neutral, the probability of ultimate fixation is equal to its initial frequency , that is, u=1/(2N) in the diploid population... In other words, for neutral alleles, the rate of evolution is equal to the mutation rate."
Kimura had explained all this in his book and at least one other paper that I know of and have cited for Williams before. I find it astounding that someone that repeatedly claims to have read a "wealth of information" on this topic so frequently misrepresents or "forgets" such commonplace information.
quote:
Scott:
So, when we look at a human and a chimp genome, they differ by about 1.1%, or roughly 35 million bps total. Which means that roughly 17.5 million of these will be in each lineage, many of which are polymorphisms, most of which are neutral.
Fred:
Not this again! An accurate measure of difference between chimps and man cannot, must not, include polymorphisms. The differences must be in fixed bps in order for it to count as a difference between chimp/man. SNPs (single-nucleotide polys) represent noise, so they are useless in such a comparison. The only time I think you could consider an SNP is if it is at a high frequency, while its corresponding SNP in the other species is at a low frequency. Only then should it be logged as a difference.
I cannot believe that Williams is foolish enough to bring this up again. Tell me Willaims - are you hoping that a 'new' audience will not know about the previous instances in which you were shown to be completely in the dark on this?
Tell us all, Williams, How - EXACTLY - SNPs are then REMOVED from such analyses?
Do I really have to explain this to you AGAIN? Or how about quoting someone you love and respect?
"I am fully aware that past sequence comparisons must have included SNPs!"
This same person had previously written:
"THEY (SNPs) ONLY PLAY A ROLE IN INTRA-SPECIES COMPARISON."
Imagine that...
Oh - and this same person wrote;
"When informed evolutionists give estimates between chimp & man, they are referring to fixed differences. Trust me! "
That was BEFORE he wrote the quotes above.
But wait - the same person who wrote those quotes, also wrote this:
"I am not necessarily stating that "SNPs are excluded when scientists compare human and chimp sequences"
[/I]
Is it possible that I knew the scientists doing the comparisons did not filter out the noise (SNPs), realizing 1) there is not enough data to accomplish this, 2) the affect was negligible for their estimate anyway?"[/i]
And now, we have Williams most recent post in this thread, trying to say all over again that "An accurate measure of difference between chimps and man cannot, must not, include polymorphisms. "
Simply amazing....
Of course, an honest debater would see that I had already qualified my statement INDICATING THAT SOME OF THE INFERRED GENETIC DISTANCE WOULD CONSIST OF POLYMORPHISMS.
"Which means that roughly 17.5 million of these will be in each lineage, many of which are polymorphisms, most of which are neutral."
You have also admitted - under duress - that there is no way to identify and remove SNPs (not directly, anyway - more later) prior to typical phylogenetic analyses, so I have no clue whatsoever why you would even bring this up again, except perhaps as an attempt to make it appear as though 1. I made a mistake and 2. you know more than you really do...
Of course, those that are actually involved in perfroming relevant scientific research know that most phylogeny programs take polymorphisms into account during phylogenetic reconstruction. They are referred to as "phylogenetically uninformative sites". Gee... What a coincidnece that is!
I hope it does not come as a shock to the creationist Williams to be told that - believe it or not - such things have been taken into account long before he came on the scene...
quote:
I realize that the 1.1% estimate is not based on a complete sequence comparison of the two. But if it were, any bp counted as a difference that was later discovered to be an SNP would have to be removed from the difference ledger. So, if 1/5th of the bps counted as different turned out to be SNPs, this would reduce the difference number from 1.1% to .088%.
Yes, it would, wouldn't it? As such, I am quite surprised that you and/or ReMine and or anyone else that tries to use sequence data and numbers to bluff their fantasies true have not as yet tried to 'prove' that 'huge' numbers of SNPs are not the norm and are in fact rare. Shame that actual data so often flubs up potential creation-friendly sound bites!...
Please Fred - in the future, at least make an attempt to keep your own arguments constant. You might try to make light of the fact that some evolutionists save the internet posts of you and other creationists, but I show above the real reasons...
Goodbye, Fred.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 08-13-2002 6:17 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by derwood, posted 08-16-2002 12:27 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 17 of 56 (15529)
08-16-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by derwood
08-14-2002 6:33 PM


I was casually perusing some other threads, and came across an exchange that I had with Williams - on the VERY TOPIC that he rants about above! Amazingly, I had already explained all this - for about the 10th time - in that thread. Williams, as he has a tendancy to do, ignored that message. Perhaps so that he can later claim that no one rebutted him?
http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)
The curious reader should wonder why it is that Williams - like many other creationists - simply re-asks, re-claims, re-states, and especially, re-asserts the same things over and over despite the fact that they have had the realities explained to them on many occasions.
I think that I know why...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by derwood, posted 08-14-2002 6:33 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 08-19-2002 8:55 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 20 of 56 (15741)
08-20-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
08-19-2002 8:55 PM


Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Dr.Page: Frankly, considering the fact that you 'think' that the ancient Hebrews knew all about bacteria (see the "Medical Evidence" section at the "Bible Evidences" link - it is all pretty funny!) because in Leviticus they are told to wash the tapestries in the home of the leper, I am not all that concerned about what you think.
You have brought this up before, always with the usual sarcasm, yet never an argument as to why the leprosy paragraph is flawed. What is your specific complaint? Do you deny that leprosy can survive on walls and garments?
It is flawed because you wildly and illogically extrapolate some commonplace activities as 'proof' that the ancient Hebrews had in-depth knowledge about microbes.
M. leprae, by the way, does not in fact live very long outside of a host.
Do you really think that the only 'ancient' peoples to engage in hygiene were the Hebrews?

Fred: I’d be curious to know if Kimura or anyone else ever attempted this calculation ....
Dr.Page: Kimura, M. 1987. "Molecular Evolutionary Clock and the Neutral Theory." "If the mutant is selectively neutral, the probability of ultimate fixation is equal to its initial frequency , that is, u=1/(2N) in the diploid population... In other words, for neutral alleles, the rate of evolution is equal to the mutation rate."
No kidding Sherlock! That is not what I asked. I’ll ask again, but re-word it.
Let me guess - one of those "shortcomings of the medium" schticks?
We know that a specific adaptive mutation will fix faster than a specific neutral mutation. But neutrals overall fix at a greater rate than adaptives because there are presumably many more of them. Each generation there is some number of new neutral mutations and some number of new adaptive mutations (assuming evolution for the moment). What ratio of neutral to adaptive mutations is required to get more neutrals fixing than adaptives? That is what I was asking.
Then perhaps that is what you actually should have asked.
It’s really not very important, just a curiosity on my part whether or not this calculation has been attempted, and if so what was the assumed selective value, etc.

Oh really? Just curious? Odd - I fouond your phrasing to be somewhat different than that which is normally associated with mere curiosity...

Tell us all, Williams, How - EXACTLY - SNPs are then REMOVED from such analyses?The curious reader should wonder why it is that Williams - like many other creationists - simply re-asks, re-claims, re-states, and especially, re-asserts the same things over and over
The reason I have to re-ask over and over again is because you refuse to see the point I am trying to make.
That is because you never seem to be able to make a point, and what point you do make (I will be generous here) is that you don't have a clue as to how molecular phylogenetic analyses are done.
I’ll give it one last shot. Say a specific base-pair site on a chimp has an SNP where 50% of the population has an ‘A’, and 50% of the population has a ’G’. The corresponding site on human has the same distribution. If we assume Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (H-W specifically deals with alleles, but it applies equally well to haplotypes such as my example above) then the shared ancestor would have had the same ratio. Thus, this would represent a site that does not represent a difference between the two species. However, if we do a direct sequence-to-sequence comparison between chimps & humans, we have a 50% chance we will log a difference where there is no difference. If the SNP ratio is 75% ‘A’ and 25% ‘G’, the odds are 3/8 (.375) that we will incorrectly log a difference. The point is, SNPs introduce error into these difference estimations. It would be very difficult to remove the SNP-induced errors with precision, but its impact can be reasonably estimated if we have a good idea of the average distribution of SNPs and the ratio of SNPs to the genome portion being compared.

You belabor the obvious, oh Grand Wizard of Undereducated Creationists! What a splendid point! I'll bet all the creationists are hanging on your every word....
My point all along is that a precise difference calculation requires accounting for the noise introduced by SNPs.
Amazingly, did I not state when I mentioned this that SNPs are in the mix? Why, yes I did! My original assessment (in this thread) is on the mark... AGAIN!
I will again stress that I realize that this SNP noise has not been directly removed, or even accounted for via estimations, when difference estimations have been made.

Translation: I have no clue what I am talking about, but I have ot say SOMETHING!
When I argued that scientists were referring to fixed differences when they talk of differences that separate chimp/human, I was stating that I assumed they knew that SNPs inflict noise that distorts the difference estimation to some unknown extent, but must be negligible enough to ignore. I admitted this sentence was confusing, but I still stand by it. If a scientist tells us there is a 1% difference between chimps and man, we must assume these differences pertain to fixed sites, and assume the SNP impact is negligible.
You stand by everything you say.write. That is, obviously, no indicator of correctness.
So, again, I see absolutley no reason whatsoever for you to have brought up your usual bullshit, except a sad attempt to look smarter than you are.

So, when you say many of the bp sites in the difference ledger are polymorphisms, we should raise our eyebrows because SNPs impact the accuracy of the difference estimate. If you had said some, then my eyebrow would have remained in stasis.
Give me a friggin break....
Your eyebrow is where is usually is - ticking Wally Kuckoo's glutes...
Informed cretins know that difference estimates are raw estimates because, as has been explained to you numerous times, such differences are gleaned using single or a few specimens of each taxon. Therefore, informed cretins know that there is no way to know exactly how many fixed v. unfixed differences there are. Informed cretins also know that whether or not a site is fixed in a species is essentially irrelevant in performing phylogenetic analyses (Poor Johnny Paul really stepped in it on that issue...).
By the way all - this is how Freddie 'admits' error....
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 08-19-2002 8:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 21 of 56 (15743)
08-20-2002 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
08-19-2002 9:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Fred:
My point all along is that a precise difference calculation requires accounting for the noise introduced by SNPs...
Good question, one that I will leave to Scott to answer in depth, if I may.
Sorry to disappoint - but there was no need to go into any depth - red herrings and all. One thing - informed cretins know that '% differences' are not meant to be "precise"...
quote:
Regarding SNPs...... Wouldn't it therefore be sensible to arrive at a consensus sequence before performing the analysis? What I mean by this, is to take (for the sake of argument) 100 sequences from humans, 100 from chimps, then orangutans etc. in order to eliminate SNPs. That is, if 99 samples say A at a particular locus, & one says G, then G can be thrown out, & A taken as the consensus for that loci.
In a perfect world, sure. Sequencing is EXPENSIVE, even if you have your own sequencers (around $125,000 and up), reagents are on the order of 300-500 dollars for 100 or so reactions...
However, phylogeny analysis does not really need consensus sequences to work. Consensus sequences would provide greater resolutiom and stronger results in most cases, but if your locus contains enough phylogenetically informative sites, it doesn't matter.
[/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 08-19-2002 9:39 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 08-20-2002 7:09 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 56 (15744)
08-20-2002 1:33 AM


Oh - and Fred - did you follow the link to the alignment?
I wish you would. I have always found that seeing actual data strengthens one's understanding....

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 08-20-2002 5:54 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 31 of 56 (15836)
08-21-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
08-20-2002 5:54 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
It is flawed because you wildly and illogically extrapolate some commonplace activities as 'proof' that the ancient Hebrews had in-depth knowledge about microbes.
You still have failed to give a decent rebuttal (only a strawman) why my leprosy claim is flawed. For anyone interested, here is the passage in question:
quote:
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can live on walls and garments! How often and how sweet it is when we see skeptic's attempts to denigrate God and the Bible turned around such that they end up glorifying God!
[/I]
Scott, the onus is on you to show this was not advanced knowledge of that time.[/quote]
Actually, I believe that the onus is on you to demonstrate that the REASON that the Hebes were told to wash the tapesties and such is BECAUSE they KNEW about bacteria and that the bacteria might be living on them.
The only 'strawman' is your laughably bizarre extrapolation claim that the Bible teaches about microbes.
quote:
Oh - and Fred - did you follow the link to the alignment?
Yes I did, but it didn’t have much bearing on the debate since you already admitted some was the more appropriate depiction. Besides, I didn’t have a problem with your belief that indels (specifically insertions) represent the largest per site numbers. I would suggest however that this particular insertion was likely a non-random mutation. [/QUOTE]
Your suggestions are based on your limited knowledge of the topic. Care to provide any reasonable evidence?
But I am glad that, for now anyway, you have decided to abandon your silly tiurades about molecular phylogenetics methods. You were really looking foolish. I will be archiving this thread, too, for future use, as I am confident that I will, at some time, have to drag it out again to show your underhanded 'debate' tactics to a new audience.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 08-20-2002 5:54 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 8:19 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 32 of 56 (15838)
08-21-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mark24
08-21-2002 10:29 AM


Alright gene, mark, john and randy:
Now, you know that it is not fair to pull the rug out from under the fundamentalist, especially when they are going to such lengths to try to prop up their fantasies....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 08-21-2002 10:29 AM mark24 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 38 of 56 (15923)
08-22-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Fred Williams
08-21-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
But the real issue is whether or not the Isrealites had advanced knowledge of microbes.
I am not saying Isrealites had advanced knowledge of microbes. This is Scott Page’s strawman. I am saying the Bible’s treatment of leprosy is yet another example where the Bible provides knowledge not available to man at the time. I’m sure the Isrealites had no idea why God commanded them to take certain actions regarding leprosy.
Here is what your saterical website has on it, empohasis mine:
************************************
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can live on walls and garments! How often and how sweet it is when we see skeptic's attempts to denigrate God and the Bible turned around such that they end up glorifying God!
****************************************************
I challenge the mentally stable to explain, exactly, how it can be that I am making a 'strawman argument' when I say that you claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Fred Williams, posted 08-21-2002 7:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 56 (15925)
08-22-2002 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
Well one thing is sure. If the disease they are describing was successfully treated with hyssop it was not leprosy.
Randy
Indeed.
Here:
http://www.kobashi.to/...hyssop_kb001108/Hyssop_kb001108.htm
************************************
Latin name: Hyssopus officinalis L.
Family name Labiatae (Lamiaceae)
Oil from leaves and flowers
Obtained by steam distilled
Origin English - direct from the grower.
We bought all he grew this year.
Density this Batch: 0.912915
Aroma: This is a Truly Beautiful and Penetrating Oil -Clean, Sweet, Herby and more.
Color: very light straw
Hyssop Oil
File: C:\HPCHEM\1\DATA\KBOILNEW\NEWCOL~1\011031\0701007.D
Operator: Ira, & Scott Kobashi Essential Oils
Date Acquired: 4 Nov 2000 00:57
Method File: KBOILLOW
Sample Name: Hyssop kb001108 England 7/2000
threshold=15, area cutoff=0
GC 5890 system and auto sampler
Oil solution: 50uls of oil in 2ml pentane (acetone to clear if necessary)
Injection volume: 1m l, splitless
Column type: zTx5 reztec, 59.23m, 0.22mmID, 0.25um film thickness
Carrier gas: Helium
Flow rate: 1ml/min, 25.9cm/sec
Pressure: 186 KPa
Injector temp: oil dependant, this oil 250C
Detector temp: 280 C
Ms ( Mass Spectrum) System: Hp Ms5972 quadrapole detector
Hyssop Oil analysed in conjunction with Hp Chemstation , Wiley 275Library,Own retention library developed over many years of testing Kobashi Essential Oils, standards chemicals, and own distillations. Chemical cross analysed with Indentification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatograpy/Mass Spectroscopy by Robert P Adams. Individual Ion patterns of chemicals have been confirmed through wiley 275L.
RT
Area%
Library/ID
Wiley
Ref#
CAS#
Quality match
10.66
0.25
.alpha.-Thujene
25175
002867-05-2
91
10.99
0.72
.alpha.-pinene
25199
000080-56-8
97
11.59
0.09
Camphene
25359
000079-92-5
97
11.64
0.12
Camphene
25162
000079-92-5
94
12.79
14.26
sabinene + beta.Pinene
25224
000127-91-3
97
13.00
1.73
Myrcene
25355
000123-35-3
96
14.18
0.08
Terpinene.alpha.
25315
000099-86-5
98
14.86
5.74
para cymene (t), Limonene<1%,beta. Phellandrene
25109
000555-10-2
94
15.39
1.10
Ocimene, cis-.beta, (Z)
25324
027400-71-1
94
15.96
0.12
.gamma.-Terpinene
25353
000099-85-4
96
17.30
0.09
terpinolene
25330
000586-62-9
98
17.78
0.71
Linalool
40052
000078-70-6
94
18.21
0.10
Thujone.alpha. (cis-)
37854
000546-80-5
96
18.70
0.09
Thujone.beta. (trans-)
37962
000471-15-8
96
19.02
0.06
Ocimene, trans-.beta. (E)
25381
027400-72-2
97
20.17
0.07
camphor
37827
000076-22-2
93
21.04
8.39
Pinocamphone
38410
000547-60-4
91
21.12
1.15
Pinocarvone
36044
016812-40-1
80
21.89
24.45
Isopinocamphone
38475
000473-62-1
91
22.44
0.75
myrtenol
37866
000515-00-4
96
22.51
0.20
myrtenal
35962
000564-94-3
96
25.47
0.02
Geranial (a citral)
37948
000141-27-5
94
30.29
0.23
.alpha.-Copaene
89527
003856-25-5
99
30.81
1.79
.beta.-Bourbonene
89548
005208-59-3
98
31.23
0.04
Elemene, beta
89661
000515-13-9
95
31.34
0.20
Methyl eugenol
62470
000093-15-2
98
31.83
0.76
.alpha.-Gurjunene
89465
000489-40-7
99
32.32
2.69
trans-Caryophyllene (beta)
89248
000087-44-5
99
32.39
1.84
trans-Caryophyllene (beta)
89248
000087-44-5
99
35.00
7.40
Germacrene-D
89658
023986-74-5
99
35.21
0.37
valencene
89600
046030-07-3
93
35.56
2.48
bicyclogermacrene
89615
100762-46-7
97
36.26
0.22
.beta.-sesquiphellandrene
89155
020307-83-9
90
36.36
0.27
.delta.-cadinene (armoise-Maroc)
89582
000483-76-1
99
37.60
4.78
elemol
108450
000639-99-6
91
39.03
0.56
Caryophyllene oxide
105971
001139-30-6
93
44.64
0.01
Nootkatone
103740
004674-50-4
58
Density 0.905 @20 C (BULK Bulgarian, KB9023)
Density (lit) SG; 0.9225 @20 C (c, sevtopolis)
SG; 0.935-0.956 @15 C (French, d)
SG; 0.957 @20/4 C (USSR, d)
Refractive index (lit) 1.4780 (c, sevtopolis)
1.478-1.490 (French, d)
Optical rotation -15 to —18 (French, d)
TO USE: 4-8 drops in vaporizer
or in burner on water. 3-5 drops in bath.
~1 drop in 10ml (2tspn) or < 1% in carrier oil,
moisturiser, shampoo, etc.
CAUTION: Do not take internally
or apply undiluted to the skin.
KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN AND EYES.
Usages: good for a sluggish constitution, mind clearing., ingredient of Chartreuse liqueur. Interesting reading in Gunther The Essential Oils Volume III pages 436-437, Aromatherapy An A-Z by Patricia Davis, The Practice of Aromatherapy by Dr Jean Valnet,
Kobashi Essential Oils 2 Fore Street Ide devon EX2 9RQ UK Kobashi Aromatherapy Products, Best Essential Oil, Vegetable & Nut Oils hyssop@kobashi.com
Used safely this is a beautiful Oil.
*******Health & Safety******* Precautions in case of over exposure.
This information is for manufacturers use: buying of large quantities to bottle and sell on.
* Ingestion: Do not induce vomiting, drink at least 1 pint of water.Seek urgent medical advice.
* Inhalation: Remove casualty to fresh air,keep respiratory passages free and seek medical advice immediately. Harmful: May cause lung damage if swallowed. If swallowed do don’t induce vomiting: seek medical advice immediately and show container or label.
* Eye contact: Irrigate with clean water for at least 15 minutes. Seek medical advice if stinging persist.
* Skin Contact:Remove contaminated clothing and wash with soap and water.
* Storage:Tightly sealed, well filled containers in a cool dark place. Keep away from sources of ignition.
*Flammable: Flash point 52 degrees C In case of fire use only dry powder or foam-never use water.
*Spillage: Eliminate all sources of ignition. No smoking. (e.g. propietary oil drying granules or sand, NOT sawdust or other flammable materials) and transfer to an approved waste disposal container, observing national legislation. Wash area clean with water and detergent.
References Checked by Dr. Kevin Brigden;
Neurotoxic (g) Abortive in over use (f)
AVOID — during pregnancy / by epileptics / children under 2 (g) / elderly (f) / high blood pressure (m)
A mild toxin, use with caution (k) Should not be taken orally, may cause convulsions (g)
Hyssopus officinalis pinocamphone and isopinocamphone account for its toxicity (g)
(a) Brian Lawrence Essential oils books (1976-94) yes
(b) Leonard Price folder yes
(c) Oil folder yes
(d) Gunther The Essential Oils Volumes I-VI (Volume III pages 436-437 yes
(e) Journals (from XL list) yes, none
(f) Aromatherapy for health profs, Shirley & Len Price. yes
(g) Essential Oil Safety,a Guide for Health Care Professionals R. Tisserand, T. Balacs yes
(h) The chemistry of essential oils yes
(i) Health and safety info (IFRA) yes,none
(k) The Encyclopaedia of Essential oils(Julia Lawless) yes
(l) health and safety folder yes, none
(m) The aromatherapy practitioner, reference manual,Sylla Sheppard-Hanger. Vol. 1 yes
(n) A safety guide on the use of essential oils,by, the international school of aromatherapy yes
(o) BIDS essential oil search doc yes
(p) Perfume & Flavour yes
*******************************************************
I see nothing about "antifungal" (which wouldn't have anything to do with leprosey) or "antimicrobial".
Any reliable evidence for your claims, Williams?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:11 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Randy, posted 08-22-2002 1:25 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 40 of 56 (15926)
08-22-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:04 PM


Originally posted by Randy:
What I said was told to me by dermatologists including one who has practiced in Africa and has direct experience dealing with and treating leprosy. You can’t contract it from walls period. Below is what the Meck Manual says about it.
Leprosy - Infections - Merck Manuals Consumer Version
Isolation, however, is unnecessary. Leprosy is contagious only in the untreated lepromatous form, and even then it isn't easily transmitted to others. Furthermore, most people are naturally immune to leprosy, and only those in a household with an infected person for an extended time are at risk of developing an infection. Doctors and nurses who treat people with leprosy do not appear to be at increased risk.
Hmmm.... Must be we all chug gallons of hyssop oil and just, by golly, don't know it...
Hey - didn't they also used to burn witches? I mean, afterall, witchism is catchy....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:04 PM Randy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024