Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does immunity disprove the fall?
Sonne
Member (Idle past 5959 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 29 of 66 (353793)
10-03-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-02-2006 3:15 PM


Faith writes:
A big part of the devolution since the Fall, then, would be the gradual destruction of the immune system, but we still have quite a bit of protection left. Interesting in this context to consider that recent diseases specifially attack that system.
Actually the immune system is in fine form and growing stronger. These "recent diseases" (by which I assume you mean acquired - or secondary - immunodeficiencies) provide an excellent example of evolution in action. Since the only way that viruses can reproduce is by infecting a cell, they must be able to evolve faster than the host's cells. The HIV virus has evolved to a point where it mutates extremely rapidly and thereby has a devastating impact on the host. However the genetic mutation CCR5-delta 32 provides strong resistance to the HIV virus (along with smallpox and the plague).
CCR5 - Wikipedia
What started out as a single genetic mutation is now present in up to 20% of the European population and to a lesser degree in other populations, due to the selective pressures of viruses in the past. The more that we are exposed to them, the higher the frequency of that particular mutation and its protection.
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-02-2006 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Sonne
Member (Idle past 5959 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 38 of 66 (353978)
10-03-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
10-03-2006 3:17 PM


Gasby writes:
Let me make it clear. There was no disease in the garden. There were parasites and pathogens, but they didn't cause disease.
If this is so then these 'parasites and pathogens' ate what and (in particular viruses) reproduced how? Did anything die before the fall? If not, then in the case of bacteria A&E may have had some strong competition for space in the garden.
And why would they gain immunity because of the fall? Remember that the creationist conception on this is that things can only get worse after the fall, not get better, because of deterioration.
What do you mean by this? That A&E were given immunity because of the fall, to protect them? Or that they evolved immunity? If the fall was a punishment then this seems a bit strange to endow them with such an amazing defence mechanism. Regardless, it's certainly doing a great job at keeping up with the supposed 'deterioration'.
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 3:17 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 8:13 PM Sonne has replied

  
Sonne
Member (Idle past 5959 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 57 of 66 (354260)
10-04-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Taz
10-03-2006 8:13 PM


Hi Gasby, thanks for your response.
They reproduce by infesting our cells. Again, not all of them cause harm to their hosts.
That's how viruses reproduce, yes. If there are viruses in your body and not causing you any harm, my understanding is that will be because your immune system is keeping it supressed. I can't find any evidence regarding a symbiotic relationship between humans and viruses. Between bacteria and human, yes, for example the bacteria that lives in our stomachs are very helpful with digestion. But the majority of encounters between humans and pathogens stimulate an immune response. A&E must have had immune systems.
The overwhelming majority of bacteria are completely harmless to us.
And there are quite a number that are harmful. If you agree that there were pathogens in the garden, then those types that have an adverse effect would have been there too.
Imagine that you are an evil king who enjoys watching people suffer. You've caught 200 enemy combatants and you want to see them suffer as much as possible. Are you going to just kill them with a single sword blow or are you going to slowly torture them to death?
Sometimes, the ultimate punishment isn't immediate death. I can think off the top of my head a hundred things worse than immediate death, and one of them is suffering for years with a disease because the immune system is fighting the disease just enough to keep you alive but it can't get rid of the disease overall.
Are you equating your God with "an evil king who enjoys watching people suffer"?? I really can't enter into this "punishment" theory, i find it perverse.
Life does involve some suffering and this gives us perspective, we wouldn't know what happiness was without it. Sunday roasts every night would get a bit tedious.
Our immune system ain't any better or stronger than our ancestors'. The only difference is we live in a much cleaner environment than before and we are made more aware of the sanitation techniques that keep us from regularly contracting debilitating diseases.
Sanitation certainly helps to prevent contact with pathogens, but it doesn't help our immune systems. Exposure to them does, and my point being that if disease results from the fall, then our immune systems are keeping up just fine. If it weren't then we wouldn't have survived through all the epidemics and pandemics since then.
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 8:13 PM Taz 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