Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 10:20 PM
22 online now:
DrJones*, JonF (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 64/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Viral vaccines, ToE and predictability
Kramer
Junior Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 04-25-2007


Message 1 of 9 (405589)
06-13-2007 8:18 PM


The Theory of Evolution does not provide any information to scientists concerning what will or what won't mutate in a specific virus, gene, etc... it only states that organisms will change. Beyond that, there is no utility to the theory when developing vaccines.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 9:25 PM Kramer has responded
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 06-13-2007 9:39 PM Kramer has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2007 12:13 PM Kramer has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 9 (405592)
06-13-2007 9:19 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 9 (405596)
06-13-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kramer
06-13-2007 8:18 PM


Welcome to the fray Kramer

The Theory of Evolution does not provide any information to scientists concerning what will or what won't mutate in a specific virus, gene, etc.

Of course not. Mutations are not predictable.

Does this mean that evolution is useless? Not at all. Does this mean that evolution is invalid? Not at all.

Beyond that, there is no utility to the theory when developing vaccines.

We do know that it will be substantially the same and that certain proteins will be similar. This is because evolution predicts that the new variety will be a daughter of the previous one. Thus you know where to start with making a vaccine for a new variety of a virus rather than starting from scratch.

Of course the alternative is ... what? Prayer? Based on scientific studies this is remarkably ineffective.

Alternatively the theory of woo predicts that you know of no way to prevent it as it is visited on you by the great woo himself and you need to make your prayers to the lesser gods ralph and earl at the porcelain altar.

Your point is?

Enjoy.

ps - if you don't know already, type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy

it's the easiest quote method

Edited by RAZD, : ps

Edited by RAZD, : added


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kramer, posted 06-13-2007 8:18 PM Kramer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Kramer, posted 06-14-2007 8:31 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 9 (405597)
06-13-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kramer
06-13-2007 8:18 PM


What's your point?



We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kramer, posted 06-13-2007 8:18 PM Kramer has not yet responded

  
Kramer
Junior Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 04-25-2007


Message 5 of 9 (405666)
06-14-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
06-13-2007 9:25 PM


Does this mean that evolution is useless? Not at all. Does this mean that evolution is invalid? Not at all.

I would disagree with the first one...it is essentially a restatement of the obvious.

Being unable to make specific predictions does not invalidate the theory... but is still does not make it any more useful than the paper it is printed on...

We do know that it will be substantially the same and that certain proteins will be similar. This is because evolution predicts that the new variety will be a daughter of the previous one. Thus you know where to start with making a vaccine for a new variety of a virus rather than starting from scratch.

We also know that our children will be substantially similar to ourselves too. Does that make that prediction anymore or any less creditable than ToE... no. We knew that 6000 years ago...

It is a useless theory... that has essentially contributed virtually nothing to empirical science. It can not predict what, where, or when a mutation will occur. That is how your allusion to the flu vaccine falls apart as it would be predicting what the mutation will be, where in the gene it will occur, and what chemical changes will occur. It does none of the above... so it therefore is useless as it pertains to vaccines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 9:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2007 8:58 AM Kramer has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Doddy, posted 06-14-2007 9:06 AM Kramer has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 9 (405670)
06-14-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Kramer
06-14-2007 8:31 AM


Being unable to make specific predictions does not invalidate the theory... It is a useless theory... that has essentially contributed virtually nothing to empirical science.

The theory does produce predictions. ONE of them is that the new virus will be closely related to the previous one. Another is that every virus will change over time to adapt to methods and medications and environmental changes.

If you think this is insufficient then feel free to use last years flu vaccine, as according to you it should be no worse than this years, being virtually identical based on such predictions.

In fact I would say you are HONOR bound to use last years vaccine seeing as you think this concept of change and adaptation is so useless.

We knew that 6000 years ago...

We've known it for much longer than that. If you care to discuss the age of the earth then please follow this link to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and see if you can do what no arrogant in ignorance creationist has been able to do: refute the FACTS that show the earth is old, very old.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Kramer, posted 06-14-2007 8:31 AM Kramer has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4019 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 7 of 9 (405671)
06-14-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Kramer
06-14-2007 8:31 AM


Kramer writes:

Being unable to make specific predictions does not invalidate the theory... but is still does not make it any more useful than the paper it is printed on...

Bolding mine to emphasize a point. If you said that the ToE cannot make any predictions, then I would agree with you. But, simply if the ToE isn't useful in the design of a flu vaccine, I don't think it becomes useless any more than atomic physics does in that situation.

Kramer writes:

It can not predict what, where, or when a mutation will occur.

Quite right. It is the field of molecular genetics that can make some predictions as to what will mutate, given the presence of certain mutagens. For example, I know that UV light will cause G-A and T-C substitutions, but I don't know where.

Evolution hasn't got much to do with where mutations are. As long as they happen mostly everywhere, every now and again, evolution is valid.

Kramer writes:

It does none of the above... so it therefore is useless as it pertains to vaccines.

Now, to address this (which underlies your main point), I just typed the words "evolution" "virus" and "vaccine" into PubMed and got 55 pages of hits. Evidently, your initial assumption that the ToE is useless in the study of viruses and the creation of vaccines is not completely sound. Perhaps you should reformulate your argument to show why, if the theory of evolution cannot tell you what mutation will occur nor where, does it becomes useless in vaccinology?

Edited by Doddy, : fixed quote


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Kramer, posted 06-14-2007 8:31 AM Kramer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wepwawet, posted 06-14-2007 11:26 AM Doddy has not yet responded

    
Wepwawet
Member (Idle past 4219 days)
Posts: 85
From: Texas
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 8 of 9 (405685)
06-14-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Doddy
06-14-2007 9:06 AM


...I don't think it becomes useless any more than atomic physics does in that situation.

You mean we can't predict exactly when a radioactive particle will decay? Heavens to Murgatroid! How did they ever get those bombs to blow up? Obviously nuclear theory is useless and invalid.

This topic is so easily dismissed as gibberish...go ask an auto mechanic or a locksmith: if you don't understand how something works before you fiddle with it, you're just going to make things worse.

I get my flu shots...between 1918 and 1919 influenza killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people. Kramer seems to think of these as "The Good Ol' Days".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Doddy, posted 06-14-2007 9:06 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 9 (405694)
06-14-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kramer
06-13-2007 8:18 PM


One of the major areas of epidemiology is discovering the evolution of the virus. Using this information they can predict where other outbreaks might appear. They can identify existing breakouts, identify how it is spreading and then make educated predictions about which areas are likely areas of new breakouts. This isn't directly related to the development, but of deployment, which in a world of limited resources is very important.

While we cannot predict which mutations virii will undergo in the future, we can make predictions about which extant virii might become the predominant virii using the theory of evolution - which is useful in developing future vaccines. The theory of evolution includes explaining how migration can alter gene frequencies - a vital piece of knowledge for vaccine development and deployment.

The central fallacy though is this:

It is a useless theory... that has essentially contributed virtually nothing to empirical science. It can not predict what, where, or when a mutation will occur.

If a theory has no use, then it is useless. However the theory of evolution has uses. It certainly can't predict chance events, though genetics has lead us to 'mutation hotspots' which are more likely to mutate than others.

I will tell you one contribution to empirical science right here: Genetics. The theory of evolution demanded that (ie predicted that) there should be some unit of heredity. Since the theory had withstood its first trial by fire, it inspired scientists to go looking for genes. Without the ToE it might have taken us some time to figure that out so the ToE has advanced modern science in a gigantic way just by doing that.

As you state:

Beyond that, there is no utility to the theory when developing vaccines.

You even concede that it has some utility - even if you only see it as a minor use. I assure you that epidemiologists - the guys that do this for a living - do not think that knowledge is only of minor consequence to saving lives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kramer, posted 06-13-2007 8:18 PM Kramer has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019