Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kevin Dorner · 02-14-2002, 06:54 PM

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Yeah, too many of these NotWorthys, but what else conveys it? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

scigirl: If you don't teach, write!

cricket · 02-14-2002, 07:52 PM

Great post froggie; too bad I'm reading it here instead of there. Why aren't they posting it? Is it taking 12 hours to edit it? Maybe it's taking them a while, to chop it to bits.

cricket · 02-15-2002, 05:58 AM

Still waiting...

pangloss · 02-15-2002, 06:43 AM

I have been too p***ed off the read the BB of late, but I hope that the 'Marc' referred to is not Marc Owen, an old CARM denizen and sometimes True Seeker's paperweight. He is an engineer (imagine that) who - get this - insists that he and his sources are correct even if he doesn't understand what his sources are talkng about.

Discussing anything with him is quite literally like talking to a brick wall.

Scigrl - if you are interested and don't want to spend any money getting CRSQ, I can mail you copies of some articles. I have three issues of CRSQ. I purchased them because they have articles dealing with the laughable attempts by creationists to deal with 'in kind' evolution (HINT: when the results conflict with scripture, the results are thrown out).

If interested, you can email me at huxter4441@aol.com

RufusAtticus · 02-15-2002, 01:46 PM

Scigirl's post is up. Along with many others. Pile on, dudes; pile on!

-RvFvS

scigirl · 02-17-2002, 02:04 PM

Here's another one, under the heading "Biological evolution: Are origins important?"

John Paul stated, "That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenanceon it?. . .IMO- Absolutely NOT. Does 'knowing' an alleged common ancestor aid, in any way, cancer research? AIDSresearch?"

JP-as a biologist, of course I disagree. Epidemiological studies of HIV require accepting evolution. Cancer? Well, the lab across the hall from studies proteins in a parasite called Toxoplasma Gondii, which are important in cell cycle control. They are studying the evolutionary patterns of these genes. Perhaps understanding how the proteins work in various organisms will help us understand how they work in humans, and lead to cures.

Also, I believe that studying how we evolved from our primate ancestors will someday give us insights into our behavior, such as territorial aggression, adultery, drug addiction. Chimps have some of our traits--definitely territorial aggression. And their cousins the bonobos are not violent, but they are very "promiscuous." Understanding how humans adapted specific traits of their ancestors to survive can help us understand and perhaps help cure our social ills.

I am currently debating a creationist at II. When I ask him questions such as, "Why do Africans have a high rate of sickle cell anemia," or "Why do the Pima Indians have a high rate of diabetes?" his answer is consistently, "Because of the Fall." Well, even if that is true, this blanket explanation has not been helpful in elucidating specific cures or treatments for the Africans nor the Indians. What about evolutionary theory? Remember, evolutionary theory is rather simple (although the details can be rather complicated): populations struggle for survival since their capacity to breed exceeds the resources available, and beneficial traits get passed on to help a population adapt to its environment.

In humans, there is a working theory about sickle-cell anemia and malaria. A mutation in hemoglobin causes the protein to aggregate and causes a disease called sickle-cell anemia. However, it seems that a carrier of the disease is more resistant to malaria. This is a case where the same mutation can be beneficial in one instance (living in a malaria-infested region) yet harmful in another (living in the USA).
<a href="http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf." target="_blank">http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf.</a> A new gene has recently been discovered which seems to confer malarial resistance, but does not have the devastating effects of sickle cell anemia. Medical researchers are currently using these detailed studies from evoluionary biologists to provide explanations and cures for both diseases.

There are similar theories about diabetes, and other nutritional diseases. One theory is that diabetes evolved in feast-or-famine type populations, such as Native American tribes. One particular tribe is the Pima Indians in Arizona, who have a very high rate of diabetes--over one/half of adult Pima Indians suffer from this disease. This NIH link explains: <a href="http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/pima/obesity/obesity.htm" target="_blank">http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/pima/obesity/obesity.htm</a>
We have a long way to go in our understanding of how nutrition, cholesterol, digestion, metabolosm, ect, all interact to cause disease. Evolutionary studies like the one above will help us understand the paradox of diabetes, "the French paradox," and many other unanswered questions. Remember these studies only came about because of the theory of natural selection and adaptation.

So, yes understanding evolution can, does, and will cure human diseases, and much more. Like--give us ideas on how to save biodiversity or how to grow better crops. But even if it didn't, so what? There are a lot of scientists who study phenomenon that will not cure cancer tomorrow. Like people who study black holes. But we have decided as a human race that learning about our world for the sake of just learning, is a noble and worthy pursuit.

Also, it is my belief that the Evo/Cre controversy is contributing to the dumbing-down of our education system. Teachers are afraid to teach controverial issues, so instead they require their students to memorize the names of animals instead of teaching them how science works. If you look at the issues that our children are going to have to deal with--stem cell research, cloning, DNA testing in crimes, they need to be more educated about biology. Many facets of biology necessitate an understanding of at least microevolution in order to be used. The RFLP analysis which helps us convict criminals based on DNA evidence relies on genetic principles that are linked to evolutionary theory.

John Paul stated, "then why is today's ToE so important to
evolutionists. "

Have any of you ever watched "The X files" with a scientist? It is a very annoying activity. They will point out all the flaws, like "There is no way that Scully can determine a protein sequence by looking under a light microscope!" I become upset at this show because first of all, it's not that hard to get the details right. Second, shows like that mislead the public about science, what science can and can not do, and what scientists do. True, it is just a show for entertainment, I realize that. But scientists all over the world are irritated with misrepresentation of their theories and work. Just like lawyers are, I'm sure, if Law and Order uses the wrong motion in a case or something.

Why are scientists like this? Because overall, scientists are interested in seeking and promoting the truth. Please read my reply in "a change in position, a testimony" for a much longer treatise on what a scientist is. Evolution is not a conspiracy of evil atheists, it is a scientific truth known to the scientific community for over 100 years that works very well to explain the evidence. Therefore, scientists want people to accept this basic scientific tenet, and to stop mis-representing what evolution is, and what it isn't, to our children.

I will not send my child to a school where the teacher teaches that "the moon is made of green cheese," even if you could demonstrate to me that believing the moon is make of cheese is not detrimental, or even if it made us feel better to believe such a theory.

froggie

RufusAtticus · 02-18-2002, 07:53 PM

Reply to this thread: <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000132" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000132</a>

Edited to add: It's up w/o any edits.

------
RufusAtticus

Helen,

From the quote:

Quote:

racism and eugenics were both part and parcel of Hunter's presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Your quote is specifically referring to Hunter's version and not to the field itself. I don't see how this quote is so damning for science. I don't see how your post concerns the validity of evolution or creation. Surely, you don't think that scientific validity is a matter of whether it "feels good" or any sort of political or philosophical spin placed upon it.

Quote:

However the fact of the matter is that the Bible tears down racism in both Old and New Testaments.

So then, would you say that your Baptist forefathers did not follow the Bible? After all, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to support the subjugation of African slaves. I only ask since most Christians I know, who would describe themselves as "Bible-believing," do not conduct themselves in accord with your statement. If the Bible is so responsible for destroying racism, why has it persisted for so long in this Christian dominated culture? Why are religious conservatives like Pat Buchanan more likely to be racist than anyone else in this country? It's no coincidence that racism has steadily decreased since science has shown that all peoples share the same blood. It's also no coincidence that scientifically literate are clearly less racist than the scientifically illiterate. Evolutionary biology has done more in 100 years to destroy racism than religion has done in thousands of years. Here is a previous message from me on this topic:

Quote:

You claim that evolutionary biology (EB) or "Darwinism," as you call it, can be used to support racist ideas. What does this have to do with its scientific validity? EB can also be used to show that there is no such thing as a "superior" population. Every population has both negative and positive features. They are locally adapted and the notion that one is universally superior then the others can hardly be supported by available evidence.

Ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has shown that most populations that persist and grow do so not by killing of the competition, but by surviving events that kill of the competition and expanding into the newly opened habitats.

It has also shown that all humans are related, that no population is more blessed by a creator than any other one, and that characteristics are not the result of past curses.

On the surface, "Darwinism" can be used to support many philosophical arguments because evolution is the unifying concept of biology that explains the diversity of life. Though, in actuality, the evidence can only support some of these philosophies and racism is not one of them.

-RvFvS

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

cricket · 02-20-2002, 01:21 AM

Baptist Board update, on the Colin Powell thread -- Dark Jedi has been defrocked!

RufusAtticus · 02-20-2002, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cricket:
<strong>Baptist Board update, on the Colin Powell thread -- Dark Jedi has been defrocked!</strong>

Yeh. They banned him for asking what part of a previous post was inflammatory.

-RvFvS

Arrowman · 02-21-2002, 04:47 PM

Minor update:

Several threads on the Baptist Board have been closed when the discussion veered onto topics related to evolution/creationism. The latest incident is here, in a thread which started off being about gay rights:

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000174&p=4" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000174&p=4</a>

6:30pm 21 Feb I posted:
"...Guys, can we stop the Creation-Evolution discussion and get back on topic before this thread gets closed? You know the mods do not allow free discussion on that subject."

Six minutes later, Joseph Botwinick posted:
"This thread is closed. No evolution vs. creation disussion here. We have a creation vs. evolution forum for that."

At least the moderator appears not to have noticed my veiled dig at their methods and did not edit my post.

For those who participate in the Baptist Board - I would suggest - don't get drawn into evo/creto discussions on unrelated threads or you'll just give them an excuse to shut down the thread, and avoid further discussion on other embarassing subjects.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2002, 06:54 PM	#11
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Yeah, too many of these NotWorthys, but what else conveys it? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> scigirl: If you don't teach, write!

02-14-2002, 07:52 PM	#12
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	Great post froggie; too bad I'm reading it here instead of there. Why aren't they posting it? Is it taking 12 hours to edit it? Maybe it's taking them a while, to chop it to bits.

02-15-2002, 05:58 AM	#13
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	Still waiting...

02-15-2002, 06:43 AM	#14
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	I have been too p***ed off the read the BB of late, but I hope that the 'Marc' referred to is not Marc Owen, an old CARM denizen and sometimes True Seeker's paperweight. He is an engineer (imagine that) who - get this - insists that he and his sources are correct even if he doesn't understand what his sources are talkng about. Discussing anything with him is quite literally like talking to a brick wall. Scigrl - if you are interested and don't want to spend any money getting CRSQ, I can mail you copies of some articles. I have three issues of CRSQ. I purchased them because they have articles dealing with the laughable attempts by creationists to deal with 'in kind' evolution (HINT: when the results conflict with scripture, the results are thrown out). If interested, you can email me at huxter4441@aol.com

02-15-2002, 01:46 PM	#15
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Scigirl's post is up. Along with many others. Pile on, dudes; pile on! -RvFvS

02-17-2002, 02:04 PM	#16
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Here's another one, under the heading "Biological evolution: Are origins important?" John Paul stated, "That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenanceon it?. . .IMO- Absolutely NOT. Does 'knowing' an alleged common ancestor aid, in any way, cancer research? AIDSresearch?" JP-as a biologist, of course I disagree. Epidemiological studies of HIV require accepting evolution. Cancer? Well, the lab across the hall from studies proteins in a parasite called Toxoplasma Gondii, which are important in cell cycle control. They are studying the evolutionary patterns of these genes. Perhaps understanding how the proteins work in various organisms will help us understand how they work in humans, and lead to cures. Also, I believe that studying how we evolved from our primate ancestors will someday give us insights into our behavior, such as territorial aggression, adultery, drug addiction. Chimps have some of our traits--definitely territorial aggression. And their cousins the bonobos are not violent, but they are very "promiscuous." Understanding how humans adapted specific traits of their ancestors to survive can help us understand and perhaps help cure our social ills. I am currently debating a creationist at II. When I ask him questions such as, "Why do Africans have a high rate of sickle cell anemia," or "Why do the Pima Indians have a high rate of diabetes?" his answer is consistently, "Because of the Fall." Well, even if that is true, this blanket explanation has not been helpful in elucidating specific cures or treatments for the Africans nor the Indians. What about evolutionary theory? Remember, evolutionary theory is rather simple (although the details can be rather complicated): populations struggle for survival since their capacity to breed exceeds the resources available, and beneficial traits get passed on to help a population adapt to its environment. In humans, there is a working theory about sickle-cell anemia and malaria. A mutation in hemoglobin causes the protein to aggregate and causes a disease called sickle-cell anemia. However, it seems that a carrier of the disease is more resistant to malaria. This is a case where the same mutation can be beneficial in one instance (living in a malaria-infested region) yet harmful in another (living in the USA). <a href="http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf." target="_blank">http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/blood/sickle/sca_fact.pdf.</a> A new gene has recently been discovered which seems to confer malarial resistance, but does not have the devastating effects of sickle cell anemia. Medical researchers are currently using these detailed studies from evoluionary biologists to provide explanations and cures for both diseases. There are similar theories about diabetes, and other nutritional diseases. One theory is that diabetes evolved in feast-or-famine type populations, such as Native American tribes. One particular tribe is the Pima Indians in Arizona, who have a very high rate of diabetes--over one/half of adult Pima Indians suffer from this disease. This NIH link explains: <a href="http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/pima/obesity/obesity.htm" target="_blank">http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/diabetes/pima/obesity/obesity.htm</a> We have a long way to go in our understanding of how nutrition, cholesterol, digestion, metabolosm, ect, all interact to cause disease. Evolutionary studies like the one above will help us understand the paradox of diabetes, "the French paradox," and many other unanswered questions. Remember these studies only came about because of the theory of natural selection and adaptation. So, yes understanding evolution can, does, and will cure human diseases, and much more. Like--give us ideas on how to save biodiversity or how to grow better crops. But even if it didn't, so what? There are a lot of scientists who study phenomenon that will not cure cancer tomorrow. Like people who study black holes. But we have decided as a human race that learning about our world for the sake of just learning, is a noble and worthy pursuit. Also, it is my belief that the Evo/Cre controversy is contributing to the dumbing-down of our education system. Teachers are afraid to teach controverial issues, so instead they require their students to memorize the names of animals instead of teaching them how science works. If you look at the issues that our children are going to have to deal with--stem cell research, cloning, DNA testing in crimes, they need to be more educated about biology. Many facets of biology necessitate an understanding of at least microevolution in order to be used. The RFLP analysis which helps us convict criminals based on DNA evidence relies on genetic principles that are linked to evolutionary theory. John Paul stated, "then why is today's ToE so important to evolutionists. " Have any of you ever watched "The X files" with a scientist? It is a very annoying activity. They will point out all the flaws, like "There is no way that Scully can determine a protein sequence by looking under a light microscope!" I become upset at this show because first of all, it's not that hard to get the details right. Second, shows like that mislead the public about science, what science can and can not do, and what scientists do. True, it is just a show for entertainment, I realize that. But scientists all over the world are irritated with misrepresentation of their theories and work. Just like lawyers are, I'm sure, if Law and Order uses the wrong motion in a case or something. Why are scientists like this? Because overall, scientists are interested in seeking and promoting the truth. Please read my reply in "a change in position, a testimony" for a much longer treatise on what a scientist is. Evolution is not a conspiracy of evil atheists, it is a scientific truth known to the scientific community for over 100 years that works very well to explain the evidence. Therefore, scientists want people to accept this basic scientific tenet, and to stop mis-representing what evolution is, and what it isn't, to our children. I will not send my child to a school where the teacher teaches that "the moon is made of green cheese," even if you could demonstrate to me that believing the moon is make of cheese is not detrimental, or even if it made us feel better to believe such a theory. froggie

02-20-2002, 01:21 AM	#18
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	Baptist Board update, on the Colin Powell thread -- Dark Jedi has been defrocked!

02-21-2002, 04:47 PM	#20
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Minor update: Several threads on the Baptist Board have been closed when the discussion veered onto topics related to evolution/creationism. The latest incident is here, in a thread which started off being about gay rights: <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000174&p=4" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000174&p=4</a> 6:30pm 21 Feb I posted: "...Guys, can we stop the Creation-Evolution discussion and get back on topic before this thread gets closed? You know the mods do not allow free discussion on that subject." Six minutes later, Joseph Botwinick posted: "This thread is closed. No evolution vs. creation disussion here. We have a creation vs. evolution forum for that." At least the moderator appears not to have noticed my veiled dig at their methods and did not edit my post. For those who participate in the Baptist Board - I would suggest - don't get drawn into evo/creto discussions on unrelated threads or you'll just give them an excuse to shut down the thread, and avoid further discussion on other embarassing subjects.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.