Evolution and the Human Immune System

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,
M

Hi judge,
Thanks for the links but could you specifically cite the part of those websites that apply? Mostly Scheele argues that macroevolution cannot occur and that genetic change is exclusively degenerate (both of which are not supported by the way). Also your initial claim was that creationists are more interested in natural selection and variation than evolutionary biologists and nothing from that site gives me that impression. Sorry for being dense but it would help me out if you could quote the specific parts of your citations that you think apply.No I have not forgotten Borger cheers,
M

Hi judge, no problem take your time. I will comment though that hypermutation would actually run counter to natural selection at some level. You would need more neutral mutations for hypermutation to be visible. Hypermutation in a gene would be invisible since the majority of mutations would be selected out if they destroyed the genes function.Faster evolution would not require hypermutation..only mutations and selection at specific types of loci for example Hox genes. A small change can have a huge effect...just some random thoughts.

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.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.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...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.

Greetings judge,

quote:

---

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.

---

I would agree with you that to suggest "all creationists" deny the occurrence of natural selection would be a strawman. However, I have yet to see a common creationist model. I have seen creationists on this site deny that genetics is valid or that there is any significant change in allele frequency over time...but I would not be mean enough to torture you by asking you to read Syamsu's posts

quote:

---

My initial premise is that creationists ackowledge that natural selection occurs, and possibly more so at times than under conventional models.

---

I still don't see where the article you cite supports that.

quote:

---

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.

---

However, that would be a strawman argument if I get what you are implying (though I could be mistaken). If taken as abiogenesis, natural selection and the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. If you mean a microbe suddenly becoming a human (which I doubt you mean) that is a strawman as this is not expected by anybody..except an amazing number of creationists who post here and on other sites. If you mean that large scale changes during evolution cannot be explained my mutation and natural selection there is actually quite a lot of evidence. But before proceeding please indicate which you mean. I think you are referring to the third scenario I presented but want to be sure.cheers,
M