veracity of evolution

@richrf,

richrf;86313 wrote:

Exercise (movement0 is essential to good health. For example, I may be exposed to exactly the same flu viruses as someone else, but I will not get sick and someone else will. It is because I have a healthy body

do you think jumprope would spare you from becoming HIV positive

I only want a "yes" or "no" answer

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86313 wrote:

My vote is for Heraclitus and the Daoists.

I don't think they are the same as one another. The former is about flux, the latter is about balance. Neither is about evolutionary biology. The general themes of constancy versus change are totally generic, and applicable to myriad philosophical discussions. If they remind you of evolution, it's a coincidence. Sure, evolution is about change. But conservation of matter and conservation of energy are scientifically established examples of constancy that would seem inconsistent with Heraclitus.

Of all the ancients, Aristotle came the closest to approaching evolution, because at least he opened his eyes and looked at the world. He was a taxonomist. So were Darwin's predecessors.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86313 wrote:

Exercise (movement0 is essential to good health. For example, I may be exposed to exactly the same flu viruses as someone else, but I will not get sick and someone else will. It is because I have a healthy body.

But we all have our beliefs, and that is fine with me.
Rich

Are you familiar with the Boxer Rebellion?

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Moderate exercise, performed regularly, can improve immune response. That doesn't mean you necessarily won't get sick compared to someone who doesn't exercise, but, all else being equal, you might be less likely to become sick.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;86321 wrote:

I don't think they are the same as one another. The former is about flux, the latter is about balance.

Based upon my experiences, I would say both are about flux and change. The Taiji symbol is all about change. The two are almost identical in their basic view of life and the universe.

Aedes;86321 wrote:

Neither is about evolutionary biology.

Same thing, just different words.

Aedes;86321 wrote:

The general themes of constancy versus change are totally generic, and applicable to myriad philosophical discussions.

Yes. They are a consistent theme throughout the ages. Hegel is another example.

Aedes;86321 wrote:

If they remind you of evolution, it's a coincidence. Sure, evolution is about change. But conservation of matter and conservation of energy are scientifically established examples of constancy that would seem inconsistent with Heraclitus.

I don't think Heraclitus spoke to the matter, but I will have to re-read the fragments.

Aedes;86321 wrote:

Of all the ancients, Aristotle came the closest to approaching evolution, because at least he opened his eyes and looked at the world. He was a taxonomist. So were Darwin's predecessors.

Well, we all see evolution with different eyes and different perspectives. That is what natural exploration is all about.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 04:19 PM ----------

Pangloss;86332 wrote:

Moderate exercise, performed regularly, can improve immune response. That doesn't mean you necessarily won't get sick compared to someone who doesn't exercise, but, all else being equal, you might be less likely to become sick.

But that is what happens. So, maybe your understanding of human health is incomplete. Maybe not? Something to investigate. I have been doing that for 30 years, and have discovered lots of interesting things to keep me healthy. But that is just my gig.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 04:22 PM ----------

odenskrigare;86319 wrote:

do you think jumprope would spare you from becoming HIV positive

I only want a "yes" or "no" answer

Do you know that there are tons of people who are HIV positive? What does that mean to spare someone from being HIV positive. Is it similar to to being spared from a bad movie or something?

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86339 wrote:

Do you know that there are tons of people who are HIV positive? What does that mean to spare someone from being HIV positive. Is it similar to to being spared from a bad movie or something?

I knew you wouldn't give a straight answer

But I'll rephrase the question

"Under circumstances which would incur a high probability of contracting HIV, do you think a jump rope would protect you?"

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86313 wrote:

Exercise (movement0 is essential to good health. For example, I may be exposed to exactly the same flu viruses as someone else, but I will not get sick and someone else will. It is because I have a healthy body.

Rich

So what would you tell the parents of a child who has succumbed to some form of disease? That their child did not get enough exercise and had Qi/Chi stagnation?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;86274 wrote:

Well, I can think of things relating to death of an organism that an evolutionary biologist might be interested in. Such as what killed living things, or how did they become fossilized. In other words, these are relatively concrete biological questions.

But the distinction between life versus death, despite the fact that it can be described better than defined, seems to be a fairly trivial question in the context of evolution. A cell is dead when it no longer can maintain its metabolism and homeostasis, and this is true whether or not this or that enzyme was different 20 million years ago.

Not necessarily. They just have to enter the germline somewhere to be transmissible.

I still don't get it. Evolution is a biological science and not a belief system.

You say a cell is dead when it can no longer maintain its metabolism, but what exactly has happened to it to cause it to no longer be able to do that?

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

lots of things could cause cell death

lysis]Error for example

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86319 wrote:

do you think jumprope would spare you from becoming HIV positive

I only want a "yes" or "no" answer

Absolutely! If that is all you did was "jump rope", snicker. Sorry, Rich I know the question was for you, but I couldn't resist. Hope you don't mind?:bigsmile:

William

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86351 wrote:

You say a cell is dead when it can no longer maintain its metabolism, but what exactly has happened to it to cause it to no longer be able to do that?

I have given you an example of what might happen already, once ! And there are a number cell death 'programs' already built into the cell, and these are a matter of matter--there's no non-material 'spirit,' or 'soul,' that you keep for a pet.

I'm most certain that Aedes can point some out, otherwise I'll go pull out the reports from the various places in the various journals in my library, and give a fuller report a few days down the road. I am gonna be busy this weekend...sorry for the delay.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

@ William

well let's say, hypothetically, that rich gives himself a bunch of knicks with a pocket knife and he starts jumping rope and I stand by in a hazmat suit flicking fresh HIV-infected blood at him with a paintbrush

other things being equal, will the jump rope really help him?

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Pathfinder, lots of things can kill a cell, just as lots of problems can cause your car to break down.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I realize I have not participated in this thread, but if you don't mind I would like to offer the following observation.

What is a theory? It is an opinion, nothing more. Once one has established a theory, they will do all they can to prove that theory to be true, 100% true. Neither evolutionary science nor religious scholars have proven either for that matter. As far as natural selection, I have my own interpretation of that of which does not agree with either Darwinist and not in the least with those who believe in eugenics.

I have reach my own understanding why each proclaim all they do and IMO, both are wrong. Yet I do see an "intelligent design" to it all that cannot be compared to what we as humans define as intelligence. It is more of a "common sense" that I have gathered from the "collective mind" that represents us "all". Though I will admit it is fascinating to witness the sparring going on.

I find it even more amazing how so very complicated things become when we venture into areas we were never meant to venture. I will admit the earth has a way of concealing her past and for all good reasons I suspect. So much of our science is based on the invasion of the human body and that of animal and of the Earth in a effort to understand how they work as some equate the two very distinct and different life forms. only similar as is necessary to survive on this planet of which some are indeed "extinct" as if it were inexplicably understood in the beginning to be somehow "planned that way" noting some kind of "intelligent design" far beyond our scope of anything we can muster. But some endeavor anyway. Why when know the micro-second of even quicker we invade a living thing it automatically "changes" from a harmonic state to an "un-harmonic" one. Are we so very sure blood is really "red"? As a matter of fact some even are suspected to have blood that is "blue", Ha!

What is it we are trying to do, live forever? How so very absurd that is at our present stage of development, IMO. I will admit scientists have to eat and there are of course certain rules they are to follow too, if they are to survive, and if they do not comply with those who purchase their brilliance, which could be "anybody" with the money, power and clout to do so, they will as it is with most, suffer the consequences and starve. I think we must ask why is it evolutionist strive to continue to maintain the belief's they do? What does it matter? What are they trying to accomplish? In all due respect for those who do not choose to believe evolution is a belief, at least as it relates to what Darwin thought, I think is a bit naive, in my opinion. It is no different in those interpretation's of those who believe in the bible's version or any for that matter. They are all "theories".

Science has been such an "authority" for so long, all one needs to say is "science" says so, and that's the end of it. As far as evolutionary science, I am in the dark for I find it impossible to understand their language as it is with much of science as if the language itself and it's, less than 100% empirical proof, is the sole right of passage for anyone attempting to question what they have to say. So they say here, read this and usher you to a room the size of the pentagon filled with monstrous tomes filled with words no one can understand and say "study". Ha. What a horrific ploy, IMO. It seems to me the smaller we get (nanotechnology/microbiology) the longer and more complicated the words become. There seems to me to be something ominous about this?

Here is what I feel is the scary part associated with what began with Darwinian thought. In those invasions of the human body and that of the animal as we associate those two we added two new terms to those vast tomes of scientific rhetoric; "unfit variants and genetic mutants" as those so brilliant are bought to create the "perfect human" as it seems the one we represent was "flawed" in it's original design? Is this an accurate appraisal? Perhaps not, but it makes sense; to me anyway. But who am "I" to question? Ha! Even I have a difficult time figuring that one out as I think most human beings do.

Perhaps it was par for our human course to invade and disturb and be disturbed as we have done in the so many contexts in which those word's apply? That also makes some sense to me in some human way to finally reach a universal understanding of what "Do Not Disturb" really means and just leave Schodinger's cat alone and wish it well. For in my humble but honest opinion any invasion is indeed "Pandora's Box". I think we should do all we can to close it now. I have no idea of what that means except whatever it is, it should not be disturbing. I think we have done enough of that and lost entirely too much of that red blood, don't you think?

William

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 06:47 PM ----------

odenskrigare;86356 wrote:

@ William

well let's say, hypothetically, that rich gives himself a bunch of knicks with a pocket knife and he starts jumping rope and I stand by in a hazmat suit flicking fresh HIV-infected blood at him with a paintbrush

other things being equal, will the jump rope really help him?

I understood what you were trying to imply, and my answer was indeed in that simple context regarding the question you did ask. Only now are you filling in the blanks and offering qualifications. In all due respect the question should have included those qualifications in the first place. It would be nice if all inquiries could be answered with a "yes or a no", but of course we all have our opinions, don't we. Just call it a matter of complimentary communication, if you wish. :bigsmile:

William

2 Replies

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;86348 wrote:

So what would you tell the parents of a child who has succumbed to some form of disease? That their child did not get enough exercise and had Qi/Chi stagnation?

Yep. Without science the world would be full of disease. The great thing though, is that luckily, we don't have to worry about disease anymore. Well, maybe a little bit. After all, with science, the cost of health care has almost doubled over the last decade with absolutely zero evidence that the cost has improved life expectancy one iota.

I like your scare tactics, but they don't work on me. For me, it is no different than a commercial for deodorant which threatens a person of horrible social relationships unless they spread this gunk on their armpits. Scare tactics are as old as they come, and science has done nothing more than perfect it. Science loves putting that you will die thing out there, without qualifying it with the hundreds of thousands that it kills every year.

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

Now do you want to take credit for this also, while we are at it?

I am a very healthy 58 year old, by ignoring advice such as yours for three decades. If you can find someone my age who is doing better, let me know. I will talk to that person.

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

You guys mistake what I ask here.

I am not asking what can kill a cell. I can do that by stepping on one.

What I am asking is what has happened that makes the cell dead after whatever killed it happened?

What is the difference between the dead cell and the live one?

1 Reply

@William,

William;86361 wrote:

What is a theory? It is an opinion, nothing more.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Theory has a specific meaning in science that is different than the colloquial use you mention.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia wrote:

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

Pathfinder wrote:

What I am asking is what has happened that makes the cell dead after whatever killed it happened?

What is the difference between the dead cell and the live one?

As Chinua Achebe said, "Things Fall Apart".

There is a science that is largely devoted to cellular injury and death. It's called pathology, and if you're actually intellectually interested in this probably 2/3 of the med schools in the United States have online pathology sites for their students.

I think it should suffice to say that a living cell is a self-contained, functioning system, and a dead cell comprises the nonfunctional detritus of this once living cell. Beyond that, it's wide open -- cells can die from lysis, apoptosis, chemical injury, whatever. Membranes burst, chemical contents get broken down or incorporated by nearby living cells, whatever.

richrf;86365 wrote:

The great thing though, is that luckily, we don't have to worry about disease anymore. Well, maybe a little bit. After all, with science, the cost of health care has almost doubled over the last decade with absolutely zero evidence that the cost has improved life expectancy one iota.

Since 1990 life expectancy has increased by around 3 years for men and 1 year for women. Since 1909 it's increased by 25 years for men and 27 years for women. Infant mortality has dropped by 90% in the last century. The annual mortality of measles has dropped by millions since the vaccine was introduced in the early 1960s. In the last decade it's dropped by nearly a million measles deaths per year in African children alone.

richrf;86365 wrote:

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

Yeah, that's all we do in hospitals, trick people to come in so that we can kill them. Oh, by the way, I admitted a 21 year old girl to the hospital two days ago who was in septic shock from a kidney infection, and would have been dead within a couple days if not for my interventions. And she's an athlete, so you can't blame the lack of jump-roping.

Complicated systems have errors, and we see that constantly in medicine, in economic stewardship, in airlines, in product safety, in computer safety, etc. We're trying to make it better. In our hospital we have computerized documentation and computerized physician order entry, which has greatly reduced dosing errors and illegibility problems. The ACGME has mandated more humane work hours for residents, so that they are not working while exhausted. We're trying to make it better.

So give us a goddamned break, we're working on it and I'm getting sick of your chafing haughtiness towards my job, my colleagues, and a career in which I actually see people's lives getting better.

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I guess in order to discuss it further with youy I would have to have a greater understanding of the science Aedes. for you are unwilling to say what the actual difference is between the two unless I study the science behind it and I am not going to be able to do that in a few days. maybe a week,lol.

To my mind, if you have two boxes that are exactly the same in every way, to the most minescule detail, and one contains life and the other does not, there must be a ereason other than to simply say that one is dead or one can no longer support life.

If both boxes are exactly the same and one can no lomger sustain the life that was within it, what is the difference that causes this?

One box gets squashed. Suddenly there is no life there. Every molecule is still exactly the same. Nothing has changed between the two items whatsoever except that one is squashed. the only difference now is that one has life and the other does not.

Why?

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86388 wrote:

I guess in order to discuss it further with youy I would have to have a greater understanding of the science Aedes. for you are unwilling to say what the actual difference is between the two unless I study the science behind it and I am not going to be able to do that in a few days. maybe a week,lol.

Path, it's not that I'm "unwilling". I think there is an impasse here in which I don't really understand it as a binomial thing, i.e. as if there's a simple yes/no parameter that differentiates life from death.

I'd start by directing you to a few specific kinds of cell death that are well described in medical pathology:

Necrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coagulative necrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apoptosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

William;86361 wrote:

What is a theory? It is an opinion, nothing more.

would you say that gravity is an "opinion"

William;86361 wrote:

As far as natural selection, I have my own interpretation of that of which does not agree with either Darwinist and not in the least with those who believe in eugenics

you don't believe in eugenics? don't eat bananas or almonds then. or any other agricultural products for that matter

and if you've got a brilliant argument against evolution get it published

William;86361 wrote:

I have reach my own understanding why each proclaim all they do and IMO, both are wrong. Yet I do see an "intelligent design" to it all that cannot be compared to what we as humans define as intelligence. It is more of a "common sense" that I have gathered from the "collective mind" that represents us "all".

there's a term for what you're doing

it's called "question begging"

William;86361 wrote:

I think we must ask why is it evolutionist strive to continue to maintain the belief's they do? What does it matter? What are they trying to accomplish?

they're trying to get the human race not to be dimwitted

William;86361 wrote:

It is no different in those interpretation's of those who believe in the bible's version or any for that matter. They are all "theories".

http://splendidelles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/science-vs-faith.png

William;86361 wrote:

Science has been such an "authority" for so long, all one needs to say is "science" says so, and that's the end of it. As far as evolutionary science, I am in the dark for I find it impossible to understand their language as it is with much of science as if the language itself and it's, less than 100% empirical proof, is the sole right of passage for anyone attempting to question what they have to say. So they say here, read this and usher you to a room the size of the pentagon filled with monstrous tomes filled with words no one can understand and say "study". Ha. What a horrific ploy, IMO. It seems to me the smaller we get (nanotechnology/microbiology) the longer and more complicated the words become. There seems to me to be something ominous about this?

we sometimes need extended vocabulary to explain new concepts with precision

this is nothing new, it started well before the scientific era when Middle English and Early Modern English were coming into being

why not just go back to eald Englisc?

William;86361 wrote:

Perhaps it was par for our human course to invade and disturb and be disturbed as we have done in the so many contexts in which those word's apply? That also makes some sense to me in some human way to finally reach a universal understanding of what "Do Not Disturb" really means and just leave Schodinger's cat alone and wish it well. For in my humble but honest opinion any invasion is indeed "Pandora's Box". I think we should do all we can to close it now.

way too late

also I will one day be among those tearing open the lid of what you call "Pandora's box," think about that when you go to sleep

William;86361 wrote:

I understood what you were trying to imply, and my answer was indeed in that simple context regarding the question you did ask. Only now are you filling in the blanks and offering qualifications. In all due respect the question should have included those qualifications in the first place. It would be nice if all inquiries could be answered with a "yes or a no", but of course we all have our opinions, don't we. Just call it a matter of complimentary communication, if you wish. :bigsmile:

ok, so if I were flicking HIV-infected blood at rich's open cuts and he were using a jump rope would it save him

richrf;86365 wrote:

Yep. Without science the world would be full of disease. The great thing though, is that luckily, we don't have to worry about disease anymore. Well, maybe a little bit. After all, with science, the cost of health care has almost doubled over the last decade with absolutely zero evidence that the cost has improved life expectancy one iota

you just goad me into saying hurr durr don't you rich

first of all, all the comments you are making about the cost of health care are specific to the US. do you know how much a doctor's visit costs in Sweden rich? like twenty dollars. that is one reason I intend to move there. see I don't like either unfettered capitalism or belief in bullcrap. I think I can cut both out of my life contrary to what you seem to believe

second, here are UN figures on life expectancy

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are some confounding variables like population genetics, but you'll notice all the countries at the top are ones that rely on Western medicine

and you know what I don't think that's just random correlation

how bizarre, how bizarre

richrf;86365 wrote:

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA

An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

Now do you want to take credit for this also, while we are at it?

this is specific to the US rich. not specific to Western medicine. we don't have the best health care system in the world

it's like you want me to get banned. you want me to lose my temper, call you a ****head for all this drivel you post and then I'll get banned. is that the game you're playing here?

richrf;86365 wrote:

I am a very healthy 58 year old, by ignoring advice such as yours for three decades

not because of it, in spite of it

don't pretend you're the rule rather than the exception

Pathfinder;86370 wrote:

What is the difference between the dead cell and the live one?

it stops meeting criteria for living, like homeostasis

that's all

1 Reply

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know