Average Chihuahua lifespan: 15 years. Average wolf lifespan in captivity: 15 years (depending on subspecies, they average 4-15 years in the wild)
The adaptation discussed malaria is A) *not* serious, and only rarely causes problems, and B) malaria, even on a YEC timeline, has been - throughout most of its history - a very deadly disease. Only in recent history has it it become less deadly. I challenge you to agree to the following: "If I had to live in western Africa, without modern medicine or prevention options, I would rather risk being infected by a disease which even with modern controls infects 300-500 million people per year, and which used to be fatal to the majority of people who got it, than to have a gene which has a possibility of giving minor kidney problems.". Will you actually say that? "Goofy" is the only word I can use to describe someone who would choose that.
quote: Adding a'new' and different allele to a population's gene pool can only increase the amount of information in that gene pool.
Not true. If you know of any scientist in the field of information theory who believes this, please let me know so I can add his name to my black book of quacks.
Fred: Would you consider that duplicating a gene could *reduce* the amount of information in the genome? No? Then it can only have the *same* or *more* amount of information. If you're arguing that ending up with "more" information is impossible, that's a topic for another thread.
quote: In fact I would say molecular biologists constitute about 30% of our voting members (which is now 650+ strong just for our YEC organization alone)
Delta 26... which aids for resistance against the HIV virus.
There is a mutation in an Italian family that has a particularly dense High density Cholesteral. This particular mutation casuses the HDL to be particuarly effective against scraping plaque away from aterial walls. Individuals with this mutatition do not get hardening of the arteries, no matter poor their diet is. (google Apolipoprotein AI)
What's common sensical about continuing to take a treatment after the sickness has been cured?
rgb was replying to Drewsky's statement:
Why must you always take an entire prescription of antibiotics?
I take that to mean Drewsky was questioning following the doctors prescription advice? As i understand it: the problem confronting many doctors is the mutation of many treatable diseases to more dangerous types because of people not finishing their prescriptions fully. They feel well and so believe they are cured, when in fact the disease is not fully eradicated.
This message has been edited by DBlevins, 03-06-2006 12:45 AM
No, I get it. I know why you take the entire course of antibiotics.
I don't understand the argument that it's "common sense" to do so, outside of the theory of evolution. Always doing what doctors say? Common sense dictates the opposite; doctors have been known to kill people.
quote:I don't understand the argument that it's "common sense" to do so, outside of the theory of evolution.
Because most people don't have an adequate grasp of the theory, and it is impractical to go around shaking each person telling him the real reason.
quote:Always doing what doctors say? Common sense dictates the opposite; doctors have been known to kill people.
Actually, to realize that doctors have been known to kill people when thinking about whether to take the whole course of antibiotics require a little bit of thinking outside the box for most people. For me personally, I'd rather people listen to their doctors (and sue them later if something goes wrong) then the other way around.
But for the sake of argument that it is indeed common sense to not listen to your doctor, would you be willing to place a bet with me that you could with ease convince people like randman and faith to take the entire course of antibiotics for evolutionary reasons? I currently have 5 whole dollars in cash. How much do you have?