Evolution and the Human Immune System

Oh, but my mistake - natural selection can't work... Right?Judge:
Not at all..natural selection occurs in creationist models.In fact natural selection would happen more (in some ways) in a creationist model.

M:Care to elaborate judge? I have yet to see a creationist model other than "goddidit" and none that invoke natural selection. But would be interested to hear your input.
cheers,
MJudge:
Sure. Here is an online book first linked here by the "evil" Dr Borger.
http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/start.htmlThe Author includes Charles drawin in the credits..."Charles Darwin, biologist. For his love of living nature, his insight, and for turning the world upside down. "He credits Darwin with bringing Natural selection to our attention and includes natural selection in his creationist theory.This link touches on it as well.
http://www.creationevolution.net/

Hi mamuthus.
I'll have to re-read it to find it. I am going from memory that he credits darwin with (discovering?) natural selection.
I tried to find it today but it was whilst I was at work and could not find the part I seemed to remember.My claim would be that in some ways creationists would beleive in more natural selection. Overall of course they would not, but I imagine any claim of "hyper-evolution" would need faster evolution than currently proposed (at times) and thus would logically include "faster" natural selection, as part of this "faster" change.

Hi again mammuthus.Here are a couple of quotes. In this first quote he says Darwin discovered something like natural selection.Charles Darwin hardly knew anything about genetics. It was quite easy for him to set up a theory in which he didn't have to think of the complex reality of DNA, genes and protens. However, he did discover that there's 'biological change' and something like 'natural selection'. The mistake Darwin made is that he interpreted this into a certain direction, assuming all 'higher' animals evolved from 'lower' animals. If biological change should be given a direction, it would be downhill: Degeneration instead of evolution.and further on......Darwin's ingeniousity is clearly seen from the fact that he found out species change and that he was able to identify the mechanism: natural selection. Natural selection is the opposite of human selection with breeding. Darwin hardly knew anything about heredity - he wrote a book about 'blending inheritence' which was found to be completely beside the truth - and he also did not have the knowledge of genetics.
From here.http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/summary.html[This message has been edited by judge, 09-09-2003][This message has been edited by judge, 09-09-2003]

M:Hi judge,
I fail to see how either of those supports the idea that creationism finds hypermutation, natural selection, or allele frequencies or any other measure of genetic change over time more relevant than the theory of evolution.Judge:
Neither do I :-)I don't think I claimed this though. I did not claim it was "more relevant". In the first or second post it was stated..."Natural selection can't happen ..right"I wanted to indicate that this is a strawman argument. Of course natural selection happens and to sugest that creationists or all creationists deny this is a strawman and counterproductive to discussion.M:
The first paragraph suggesting that Darwin proposed a lower to higher scheme of evolution is unclear to me from my reading of the Origin of Species...though some of the terminology used by Darwin and his contemporaries would today be taken as offensive..much like the reaction you would probably get in New York City if you called an Afro American a negro. In any case, besides there being no support for degeneration I still fail to see how this supports your initial premise.Judge:
My initial premise is that creationists ackowledge that natural selection occurs, and possibly more so at times than under conventional models.M:The second passage makes a false assertion, that artificial selection works in a way unrelated to natural selection...and then does not support the assertion...Judge:
Perhaps the explanation is given in the body of the book?M:
the rest goes on to point out that Darwin and most of his contemporaries did not know anything about the mechanisms of heredity i.e. genetics and then goes on to ignore the fact that there has been over 150 years of research since the publication of the Origin of Species where scientists did know about heredity.Again, I fail to see how any of this supports creationism or the premise that creationist interpretation somehow relies on mutation or natural selection at all.Judge:
The point is that the original argument contains a "strawman".Whether creationists rely on it I don't know but it is certainly ackowledged as occrring in their models...some at least.
It is not seen as being able (in conjunction with random muataion) to justify a beleif that microbes turned into men, thats all.all the best[This message has been edited by judge, 09-10-2003]

Apologies you are correct.I misinterpreted your statement.."natural selection can't work right?"Please acept this apology.

M:
However, I have yet to see a common creationist model.Judge:
Ha!...we can't even agree on whether one should be baptised or not.
It is some way off at the moment. but I believe it will come.You were correct in that I meant the third option.
As for the evidence, I discount it without considering it as far as common descent is concerned.
This may sound funny, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.Might as well admit it. I find it fascinating to look at it...but I actually believe that Adam was not created mortal. I find it impossible to understand Jesus etc...etc...etc...unless this is the case.
I could be wrong but at the moment I tend to think not (hmmm.thats probably understating it a lot) [This message has been edited by judge, 09-13-2003]