Why Diseases

Philip,Post 27, please. These are claims you have made on this thread, & are relevant to this thread. You aren't going to be allowed to dodge.Mark

quote:

---

But I beg you return to this topic: WHY DISEASES? Not HOW DISEASES form and are treated.

​

That very word WHY is a metaphysical invokation in my personal opinion. Yet 99%+ of your entity seems to me to beg the question WHY?

​

Why must I suffer, decay, get sick, and die? Don't follow today's straw man rebukes. Just give me your honest speculation.

---

Why, you ask? The same reason that fish swim in water, why birds fly in the air, and why buffalo roam the plains. The same reason that cattle eat grass, bees eat pollen, and bats eat insects. For microorganisms, the human is the niche they live in, or take advantage of. Disease is not limited just to humans, but to every organism on this planet. Even bacteria acquire disease, namely bacteriophages. As long as you do not kill off every single host, you can continue to take advantage of the energy source.Diseases that are not tied to infection also make sense under evolutionary theory. We are always on the edge of "good enough," that is our bodies are made to beat current competition, not outcompete any conceivable opponent. This "good enough" mechanism does not prevent disease from occuring. If a disease is detremental to reproduction for a population as a whole (not just for one individual) then that disease will be selected against. However, this takes time, especially for asymptomatic recessive carriers. There have been evolutionary advances against disease, however. Mutations in the hemoglobin gene to fight off malaria and mutations that confer better ratios of HDL to LDL cholesterol are two examples. These mutations have started in small populations and are quickly spreading to the surrounding populations.So maybe the question is "Why Not?" Why shouldn't there be disease? Why shouldn't there be mutations that cause detriment to the individual, and at the same time mutations that confer resistance to others. If we and all organisms were designed or created this makes no sense. If all life has evolved, it makes perfect sense.Oh, and by the way, it takes increases in information for bacteria to continually infect a population. Over time a population will build up immunity to a microbe. The microbe overcomes this by increases of information. Loss of information does not explain virulence.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-23-2004]

Philip Suffering is a normal part of being a mortal imperfect biological organism.Sufffering is also subjective since what devastates one person is bearable by another.Getting sick is the result of many different situations in life, from ingesting bad food to inhaling noxious fumes to etc...
Dying is the result of the fact that an organism is imperfect and incapable of forever staving of the entropy that is constantly working against it.Like any machine, parts wear and are replaced imperfectly,and bit by bit the errors accumulate until they are no longer able to resist the ravages imposed by living itself.Besides suffering is temporary as are most sickness and death is but a single moment in all your life.The best you can do is to enjoy it where you can and make your life as pleasant as possible and keep your trespasses against others to a minimum.Above all else seize the day.It will not come again.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

To stave off the invitable "sin causes entropy" response, we should point out that entropy must exist for chemical reactions to occur. Life wouldn't even be possible without entropy.

CrashfrogGreat point.I will place one website to explain accurately without confusing the issue. http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.htmlThe next to explain how it relates to the ability of life to exist in defiance of entropy if only for a short while.
http://www.hevanet.com/kort/ENTROPY1.HTMHopefully the smart ones will actually read to understand but I suppose that is an individual decision.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Mark,
How bout we get back on track on "Why diseases" and argue ToE evidences and definitions of strawman elsewhere. We're not going down your road here on either of your refutes.I've observed you've posted an astonishing 2244 times, quite a truth-seeker it seems to me! Surely this is almost a disease. If you're so convinced you know our diseases via the ToE then why do you strain so hard and oft at knats like "strawman definitions".

Everybody has to have a hobby. If you think rebuking your creationist nonesense is anything approaching an effort for someone of mark's intellectual caliber then I suspect you're quite mistaken.

Thank you for your speculation(s) on mutations and mutationalist hypotheses per se.That your hypothesis makes "perfect sense" I must beg to differ. Raw mutations are almost always detrimental. A true mutation would be a miracle (god-of-the-gaps fallacy perhaps).What you are referring to as mutation(s) seems to be, in fact, misnomers for APRIORI adaptability (as was the case for "mutation hot spots" that hit these forums nearly a year ago)In sum, the misnomer you call 'mutation' you've been hoaxed to believe by political biologists, i.e., in your malaria and hemoglobin discourse.Remember, any gross/raw beneficial mutation (that you speak so casually about here) is a fallacy here. (I'd sooner see a computer bug spit out a viable crash-resistant algorhythm)

Wow, crashfrog, you've exceeded him!I personally doubt ones hobby is a viable motive in this matter. There is no intellectual caliber in what you state. Unconscious spite might seem more likely.As for Mark. I'm sure Mark can explain to us how wise he is without your benevolent assistance.

Ah entropy! Finally you, SL, bring up the law of entropy. You've even added a note of rhetorical com-passion (if you will) to this metaphysical dilemma.I agree. But "pleasantness" is not dopamine nor synapsing brain cells coupled nor endorphins secreted by the mid-brain. Pleasantness is the 99+% of what I (we) aspire, an extremely metaphysical reality (in my dogmatic opinion) that defies naturalistic explanation/science.

This is a nice unqualified statement that can actually be measured. If you wish to defend this assertion based on ignorance perhaps you can open a thread to do so.

---

Common sense isn't

PhilipIn your statement Please present the evidence you have to back up this statement? I mean that,actually present the evidence not opinion.So you have an understanding of what entropy entails correct? You agree with that statement I made here? You are also aware then that without entropy life would not be possible in the first place?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Philip, Sure, right after you support your assertion that Evolution is a straw-man & that is is a perversion of science.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

That your hypothesis makes "perfect sense" I must beg to differ. Raw mutations are almost always detrimental. A true mutation would be a miracle (god-of-the-gaps fallacy perhaps).

---

How is raw mutation different than mutation? I have never seen a geneticist use the phrase "raw mutation".Why isn't resistance to malaria due to genetic mutation not a benefice to the carrier of the mutation?Why isn't improved health through better cholesterol ratios not a benefice to the carrier of the mutation?It seems God has been squeezed out of this gap. Again.

quote:

---

What you are referring to as mutation(s) seems to be, in fact, misnomers for APRIORI adaptability (as was the case for "mutation hot spots" that hit these forums nearly a year ago)

​

In sum, the misnomer you call 'mutation' you've been hoaxed to believe by political biologists, i.e., in your malaria and hemoglobin discourse.

---

The human genome is now complete. Could you look through it and find the other APRIORI adaptible traits that have yet to be triggered. Failure to do so falsifies your theory. What you have is an ad hoc rationalization to discount the effects of mutation and selection. Could you show me the pre-determined mechanism that resulted in resistance to malaria via mutated hemoglobin? I am eagerly awaiting your response, since no other biologist has yet found it.

quote:

---

Remember, any gross/raw beneficial mutation (that you speak so casually about here) is a fallacy here. (I'd sooner see a computer bug spit out a viable crash-resistant algorhythm)

---

What is fallacious about something that has been scientifically tested and supported versus something that is an ad hoc rationalization devoid of any explanatory power, prediction, mechanism, or support?

Your losing me SL,Entropy is law of decay. It never begets life, only manifests in its destruction.Also, my statement: <>

​

Pleasantness is a state of being; dopamine is a substance, not a state of being. Of course, you can call any evidence you'd like to the contrary. Honestly, I'm pretty vexed with this conversation, SL. You can ask others what they think; I don't want to follow where this one is going.

​

Thanks,