Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Hey fm--I mentioned Einstein the other day and you jumped on me for what you said was my using him to give myself credibility and your mate ci. uses Einstein every post and you have said not a peep about that.

That's how narcissistic you are. Evidenced. And your devious arguments about GW are the same. And everything else you spout. Your pro-evolution crap is self promotion and looks like it.

You just assert I'm narcissistic as if readers of a science thread take any notice of assertions.

Answer the point will you? --what has natural cooling and warming got to do with whether there's a man made contribution to warming? You can't even say "man made". You have to use a jewel in your tiara. Anthropofuckinggenic. Makes you feel special does it? Using this battery of big words which you got out of a silly book. Bertrand Russell says to beware of folk who do that. And so does Henry Fielding.

You can't even leave the whales in peace but have to go look at them for your photograph album. You couldn't even resist sticking your picture up on here. A sorry sight. I prefer your avvie. What's that all about?

That post is the equivalent of ladies' make-up. A patina of shite to gloss over the depredations of time.

spendi, Pro-evolution is not self-promotion. It's simple fact supported by evidence; something you lack in your opinions. Naming authors and quotes from books have taught you nothing of value, because most of what you write has no relevance to the subject being discussed. It's sort of like a side bar, but at your local pub.

Your fatuous diatribe is just a way of ignoring the idiotic position fm put forth on GW. And Miller's on democracy. Do you really think readers won't notice?



Try not to look so stupid ci. Of course it is self-promotion. Darwin, Miller, Dawkins and Prof Forrest, and all the rest, are into nothing else. fm is just piss-poor at it. I know the choices of what you are promoting even if you don't.

No, it's not! You haven't challenged farmerman's thesis in any way; what makes you think you are correct with your assumptions? You haven't provided any evidence for your opinions. They are your opinions without any support from science. ID is not an answer.

I do agree with you at times and I can see where you are coming from and I do think that your post should be considered as A logical point of view to a degree in my opinion!

Please keep in mind that these are my opinions along with a lot of copies and pastes and should not be considered as if I know what I am talking about! LOL

With all of that aside we could go in depth about why all of the people that have HIV do not have AIDS, This reasoning ignores numerous examples of viruses other than HIV that can be pathogenic after evidence of immunity appears.
Measles virus may persist for years in brain cells, eventually causing a chronic neurologic disease despite the presence of antibodies. Viruses such as cytomegalovirus, Herpes simplex virus, and Varicella zoster may be activated after years of latency even in the presence of abundant antibodies. In animals, viral relatives of HIV with long and variable latency periods, such as visna virus in sheep, cause central nervous system damage even after the production of antibodies.

HIV has a well-recognized capacity to mutate to evade the ongoing immune response of the host

The pathogenesis of HIV disease, even though important details remain to be elucidated. However, a complete understanding of the pathogenesis of a disease is not a prerequisite to knowing its cause. Most infectious agents have been associated with the disease they cause long before their pathogenic mechanisms have been discovered. Because research in pathogenesis is difficult when precise animal models are unavailable, the disease-causing mechanisms in many diseases, including tuberculosis and hepatitis B, are poorly understood, but the pathogens responsible are very well established!

To be honest with you in my opinion, You brought up the word "probable"


Is it not "probable" that which logic is built upon? Until we have something better how can we move forward?

I thought hockey stick was some sort of reference to those coy hypocrites who can not bring themselves to say hell and say H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICK. I wonder how many of them are named Laura or Louis?

For the purposes of trialing cures, but for a scientific proof, statistical evidence is important and it has been corrupted in the case of HIV/AIDS .

There is a world of difference between probable and proven . Probable is a percentage less than 100and proven is a 100 percent .

It's you who needs to re-read fm's position on GW ci. Not me.

The Global Warming "hockey stick" is a kind of derogatory paper by Soon (and oft quoted by the GW "deniers") this paper was an attempt to show that the statistics in drawing the conclusion that humans were the source of Global WArming , was wrong. The Hockey stick was the pattern of temperature rise from 1000AD to about 2000. .For some reason it became a celebrity cause to focus global warming denialism into the mainstream. Now , I think everyone can see that global warming IS occuring(and the hockey stick is actually correct) but there still is a wide chasm of "believers and non-believers" that its anthropogenic.
I feel that the paleoclimatologicl data is compelling to draw the conclusion that this climate change we are now experiencing is a "cyclic and oft occuring "phenomenon. Humans are amazingly vain and unable to imagine that earths cycles like drought, tempereature, ICE AGes and sea level rise are things that may be beyond our control.

When it comes to science, data is "compelling" or "not cpompelling" Theories are the highest form of correlation to a phenomenon and its cause and effect. (A theory is a xlustered explanation for a phenomenon where ALL the data to dat, supports the xplanation and NO data refutes it).

I dont think that we are yet at a theory status for global warming (either side) but I find the data compelling that states that things like "greenhouse gases" are not leading indicators but are following indicators.
NOW, When it comes to AIDs/HIV, it HAS risen to the level of a theory . ALL the medical treatment today (There are a couple of whackys one out there like peach pits etc) is based upon the relationship of HIV/AIDS. So far, all the data is in support of the theory and no data has been shown to refute it. The "Perth group " (and a few other HIV/AIDs denialists)has been active in spreading a lot of crap that many yokels will buy. ( They originally claimed evidence that HIV wasnt even in semen so how could it be a causitive agent?) This was a waste of time just like evolution deniers waste our time on claiming that there are no intermediate fossils. Well, HIV has been shown to be present in semen since the adoption of host specific testing in the late 1990's. Even so, the argument and the claim is brought forth by the yokels as a"provable truth"
The relationship that HIV causes AIDs is "scientifically compelling" as would any series of data and evidence for any theory. Those who demand "proof" should either become mathematicians or philosophers. In science noone demands proof, we demand evidence and compelling evidence at that. Proof is an arithmetical means to check the correctness of a calculation. The only way we "prove" a theory is by not disproving it (its been said)
Ive been very specific to have discussed "compelling evidence" , or "I support yadda yadda". Ive never used the word "proof" nor have I accepted "proof" as even valid as a scientific tenet.
We can always take components of a theory and try to falsify them. This is routine. But the results are still evidence , not ever are they proof. Demanding proof, until you turn blue is a fools demand and several of our members are either impaired or know that such outcomes are impossible in science . Even our mathematical LAWs are derived from empirical evidence or "Thought experiments".

SImple minded demands and simple mimded conclusions are derivd from reading tabloids and watching TV news not engaging in science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hers an article from Wikipedia about the "Hockey stick" paper. I accept Wiki in this one cause I reviewed it and didnt see any major flaws from my following the event


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Nobody in the professional field could be so stupid as to say that GW is caused ONLY by mankind's activities. That there are natural cycles of warming and cooling is obvious. But that does not mean that human activity does not contribute to GW.

Fossil fuels are stored energy from the sun laid down over millions of years and now suddenly released over 200 years. How can they not be contributing to GW? There's a fire in every machine which produces emissions. And co2 is a greenhouse gas. Plus there are other chemicals released which might be a more important source of problems.

If we are in a cooling phase our activities might be useful in inhibiting some of the worst effects.

The political effects of self-indulgent excessive consumption of fossil fuels are far more important than any of these diversionary tactics which are designed to allow big time consumers like fm to slide gracefully out of their responsibilities as members of the human race with the sort of psuedo technical blather of the type in his posts on the subject.

Perhaps you should do that pan. A centre for disease control does need disease to be in business. Do they cause any disease? Where would they be if we were all healthy?

One does see a lot of attempts to jolly us along. Coupled with a lot of attempts to lower our self esteem.

I would imagine, from the incredulity expressed in that post that youve been cloistered these last twenty years.Or is it because you have had your head firmly up your ass for the same time period ? Which one is it?

You should know fm having asserted often enough that it's up my ass. But I'm not shoving and shoving and shoving to get it up further like you are.

Spendious.... Your trouble is... your heads come outa yer arse through your mouth.

Ok I can except that! What is this world of difference between probable and proven? "If we were to use what only a few as yourself would use as empirical or absolute,{ only because the common lay person does not think as detailed as you are able to}!

What is the percentage of those who have the virus's antibodies at some point in time in their life from those who we are not able to detect it? Could it be less than one in a million or do you have this empirical information that may make this study more conclusive?


Please keep in mind that I do think that you did bring value into this! I am only trying to study this subject more empirical than what I already know!

We dont PROVE a damn thing in science EVER!!!. The whole position is preposterous and amateur. I cannot prove that uv light at a specific wavelength stimulates a specific phosphorescent wavelength in response. I can show evidence that is unassailable and calculate the incident and resultant wavelengths and compute the enrgy oss. HOWEVER I cannot prove it happens. JEEZUS, dont buy that **** .
AS far as Ionus , hes never anywhere explained why he accepts that HIV is the agent of AIDS, yet he so "believes".
Ive asked him that and he refuses , because I ctually think hes incapable of compiling a decent argument either way. His entire MO is rudeness, insult, and ad hominem seratem post clips and one line responses. (sorts like DAve). Awarding a "value addedpost" is like blindly buying a mule for a stud service.

Please do not take this the wrong way! I do agree with you absolutely and I can also see where Ionus is wrong in my opinion but he does bring value!

Yes I do agree that he would be of a much greater value to us all if he were to give up the emotions when trying to share his thoughts and ideas with us all! But would we not be just as valuable if we could restrain our emotions as well?

A smattering of levity gives the thread longevity.

You're a poet
But
I betcha
know it

Naaah, youve been pretty much a bystander, Ive ben the active participant. Ill decide whats in my interest, not anyone elses. I love arguments especially in science. But when someone merely steps up and claims what even isnt so, its sad to approve. I cant, in good conscience, no matter how impaired the guy has claimed to be.

SO, if Im asked for my opinion ABOUT his input, my opinion is that its been mostly useless and vapid.