mibby529

Since the creationists here wonder how evolution has helped us, there are many ways:

1) Explanation of history. Due to superior medicine, and the fact that we bathed every day, there were no fatal diseases in North America. Whereas Europe had many diseases; for one thing, the water was so putrid from so many wars. Since we had no immunity to herpesvirus, such as smallpox, we lost. This is also why nomadic Indians, such as plains Indians, have larger populations today than more previously-dense populations (i.e., Pueblos.) (If a virus isn't transmitted, it doesn't do as much to a population.) On an interesting side note, I've read that Indians have a greater immunity to filovirus, not that I'll inject myself with Ebola to find out.
2) Pesticides. If we didn't know about natural selection, we'd be using the same pesticides as always. Unfortunately, insects would get stronger against them. It's like war; after the first few battles, the one who learns more about his enemy has an advantage.
3) Medicine. Like insects with pesticides, bacteria adapt to antibiotics. So we can't use the same antibiotics over and over again.

GunnerJ

Yeah, that's all true but... "that's just microevolution."

Starboy

I find this argument facinating. Why does it refute anything at all?

Starboy

NialScorva

It doesn't, I think that was Rim's point.

GunnerJ

Turn your irony meter up, starboy!

GeoTheo

Here's some irony: testing "scientific" creation hypotheses is actually flattering to creation psuedoscience becuase testing hypotheses is what one does in Science. But when you make falsifiable predictions and test them and they don't stand up you are labeled as a tool of Satan.

pz

Native Americans did not have superior medicine. Medicine was in a pretty primitive state on both continents.
This is a bit dubious in the assumption that North American natives were always that careful, that Europeans were consistently dirtier, and that any difference in relative personal cleanliness was enough to make a significant difference in health.
That one is clearly false. The native Americans did not keep written records of deaths in quite as much detail as Europeans, so it's easier to pretend the problem did not exist, but you can be sure that they were dying in droves, and that infant mortality in particular was a severe problem. Disease would have been the overall leading cause of death in North America before the European invasion -- it just would have been more common at younger ages. Europeans brought lots of new diseases that also struck at Americans in the prime of their life.
War would not have been particularly hard on the water supply. What would have made the water bad is sewage, which is a consequence of the far greater population densities found in Europe.

That's the real root of the problem: population density. There were many more Europeans, they were used to living in crowded cities with greater exposure to disease and greater opportunity for disease to spread.

Have you read Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_? It gives a more thorough description of why native America collapsed in the face of European expansion.

mibby529

Well, since I AM Indian, I know these things. Europeans were using leeches, while we were using time-tested herbal medicines and steam baths. Today, there are attempts by pharmaceutical companies to learn NDN medicine and copyright it. Have you heard of ethnobotany? And yes, we DID bathe every day. It was considered disrespectful not to.

Some died of diseases, but there were no fatal diseases unique to North America, like Europe had smallpox.

As for Guns, Germs, and Steel, I think he left out worldview. Blaming it on memes is easy, but the fact remains: I CAN rape a woman, but I WON'T. I CAN kill a man, but I WON'T. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they WILL do it.

pz

Claiming that you "know these things" because you are Indian is ridiculous -- it would be like me claiming to be an authority on the Vikings because I am mainly of Scandinavian ancestry.

Most herbal medicines are quackery, and are just as silly as using leeches. Ethnobotany acknowledges that there are useful pharmaceuticals in the natural world (duh...), and that people who have had historical experience with them would be informative in identifying them. This is just as true of European herbs as North or South American herbs. Or do you think Europe was totally lacking in any medicinal plants? Perhaps Europeans were just too stupid to recognize them.

You keep insisting on this absence of serious disease in North American populations. It is ludicrous. I suspect that the average North American hunter-gatherer was healthier than the average European city dweller, but it wasn't because of a near-complete absence of pathogens -- it was because he was eating better, exercising more, and living in a less crowded environment, and part of the reason it was less crowded is that if you were ill or weak, you tended to die off in the harsher conditions. Let's dispense with the idyllic noble savage crap, OK? It was a hard life for both groups.

You clearly have not read Diamond. He doesn't blame anything on memes, and has a very sympathetic view of native peoples who have been displaced by European conquest. He 'blames' the differences primarily on geography and resource availability. He certainly doesn't tie it to some vague notions of morality, which you seem to be implying in your last sentences.

Synaesthesia

Although the development of abiotic alternatives will soon displace leeches, they are still used today to relieve superficial blood channels.