should creationists be allowed in science?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by steeven91, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    To Greenboy

    Re Hoatzin

    I am not quite sure what point this bird makes in your argument. It is an unusual bird. So what? it is no Archaeopteryx or anything like it.

    Re Coelacanth

    A fascinating animal. This actually strengthens evolutionary ideas, since it provides a modern example to be studied of the lobe finned fishes, and expands our knowledge. It is far from being the only example of an ancient life form that survives to the present day. The phylum Brachiopoda shows its first examples in sediments of precambrian age, and slightly more developed examples are still common today.

    Do you think that, because evolutionists change their views with better and more up to date knowledge, that disproves evolution? That is a pretty strange and twisted bit of logic. All scientists change their views with new data. That is a mark of a good scientist.

    The earliest fishes similar to the Coelacanth evolved 400 million years ago. Another fossil called Tiktaalik of a lobe finned fish is found in Greenland. Tiktaalik is clearly a precursor to the early amphibians such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, which appeared in the fossil record a few million years after Tiktaalik.

    This puts the lobe finned fishes, of which the coelacanth is a fantastic member, firmly on the evolutionary path to land vertebrates. The fact that it was some of the coelacanth's relatives, and not the coelacanth itself that so evolved does not change the evolutionary path as we know it from those wonderful fossils.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    He was way into the goth scene too. Mosh pits, henna tattoos, the works.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Yet it was, once.

    Which is wrong. Sickle cell kills: and so does malaria. Without the MRSA, there would be little or no individual resistance, and much more widespread death. What is the death rate from sickle cell? Do you have a figure?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Re Greenboy's statement as below

    "MRSA is based on "resistance" based on a preexistence of a gene. If you read description of sickness from hypocrates described in detail MRSA lesions which they probably were. MRSA is not a new sickness at all."

    MRSA is multiple antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Or Methicillin resistant, if you prefer that phrase.

    This variety is absolutely, totally new. It did not exist before antibiotics. It did not exist at all before the early 1960's. To say Hypocrates experienced it is an outright lie.

    In fact, non resistant Staphylococcus aureus existed back to Hypocrites day, and I have no doubt that the venerable Greek physician had all kinds of experience with S. aureus. But not with MRSA.
  8. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Why shouldn't creationists be allowed in science. It's not like science isn't a political institution.

    Should we start persecuting creationists simply because they are unable to make a simple logical chain?

    Should women remain in the kitchen because they can't read a map?
  9. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    well well

    Here we go again, Evolutionists are a religion and also a political Institution.

    About Archaeopteryx please read the following

    They are still discussing if this was a bird or not. Read the article please

    Sickle Cell DISEASE a "positive Mutation"

    IN USA Death Rate of Sickle Cell Disease.

    8,000 persons per year
    666 Persons per month
    153 Persons per week
    21 Persons per day

    21 PERSONS DIE PER DAY....!!!! WOW bro. And this is a positive Mutation the negative mutation kills in the womb...
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Would to to even attempt to back this up?
    Or are you just going to stick with us having take your (highly uninformed) word for it?
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

  12. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Hey, my wife and I can both read maps!:spank:

    Greenboy, evolution is not perfect, although it can achieve elegance.

    What lives is what works well enough to have babies.

    So someone who carries a single gene copy for sickle cell has sickle-cell trait, which gives them a better chance to live and have kids in a malaria-ridden area.

    Two copies of the gene creates full-blown sickle-cell anemia...which still might not kill you until adulthood-meaning you still get to reproduce.

    Genes are all about making copies of themselves; after that we can bugger off, really, so there's a lot of hereditary diseases that don't pop up until midlife.

    Ok, you would probably have to agree that human selection made a toy poodle small and yappy, right? The parents were picked for smallness and yappyness until the perfection of small yappyhood was set.

    Well, in nature, there's going to be a standard set-like the shape of a flower. The bird with the best beak shape to suck nectar from that flower, of the birds around that suck nectar from flowers, will have more kids.

    So come back 10,000 years later and the nectar-sucking bird population will all look like the birds with the best beaks.
    The genes of the birds with poorer beaks for nectar-sucking work their way out of the population through predation and less success having babies.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  13. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Staph Aureus is MRSA, DID YOU hear me. You have no data to support the statement that this variety is absolutely new. What we did for decades we treated Staph Aureus infections with antibiotics like Penicillin the Methicillin Ring is present in Penicillin and artificial Penicillins like Cephalosporines among others.
    When you treat and infection you get rid of the majority of the bacterias but some always survive these ones are the resistant to the antibiotic, and they may grow into a new infection again, very common in Medicine, MRSA is resistant to all antibiotics with the Methicillin ring, but is not resistant to those antibiotics without the ring like Sulpha (bactrim) as a matter of fact is pretty weak in front of these antibiotics, the problem we are facing is because Penicillin and Cephalosporin and other artificial penicillins are use constantly and for everything , and we love these antibiotics they are cheap and very available when we get a resistant bacteria is more difficult to treat because the antibiotics to treat those infections are not so available and are difficult to obtain. But Staph Aureus from the beginning is a difficult bacterial to treat. So is not like some people painting it. Mutation and resistant and a strong organism. Not really MRSA is just a variety of Staph Aureus and nothing else.

  14. greenboy Registered Senior Member

  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Good God. Are you arguing special creation now? You are, aren't you?
  16. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    OH LOrd

    I treat people with Sickle Cell Anemia and Sickle Cell Traits every day of my week. They are very sick people, we have to be in top of them for them to avoid symptoms, and medicate them all the time. USUALLY PE and MI kills them in my area this is my experience. Sickle Cell is a bad mutation and a bad thing to have...

  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Now try to answer the question I asked.
    I'll post it again:
    Unfortunately statistics on sickle cell anaemia do NOT prove (or even support) your ridiculous contention that those who accept evolution are "religious" about it. Or political.
  18. greenboy Registered Senior Member


    This was not recently created or mutated this just Specialized and survived.. GOOD LORD

  19. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    YES they are

    Because they want to believe so bad on Evolution that anything is good for them and they do not think in reality of in the data available.

  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Define the process of "specialized and survived". What's the physiological basis of this process?

    Okay, short version: you realize that this is a genetic variant, associated with differences in enzymatic expression? And that you described it as a mutant yourself? Your choices, then, are that it evolved or that it was specially created. Pick.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    So you are claiming that MRSA has "built in" genetic resistance to synthetic antibiotics that didn't exist at all until a few decades ago? Your logic doesn't really work here.

    Initially, every case of staph aureus that was treated with penicillin - died. Then, as the years went by, and people started using penicillin more and more, a single mutation arose that gave SA a slight resistance to penicillin - not much, just enough so that a few cells would survive. These cells, selected via artificial selection processes, passed on their genes.

    The next time someone treated a nasty SA infection with penicillin, a few thousand cells barely survived. Finally one of them had a second mutation that allowed it to do pretty well in the face of penicillin. Evolution had provided it with the tools to survive.

    Then the same thing happened with methicillin. Then vancomycin. We are forcing it to evolve very rapidly - and it is doing so.

    You misunderstand. Staph infections are nothing new. Staph infections that have evolved resistance to many antibiotics ARE new. Evolution has provided them with new ways to survive.

    People who are heterozygous for sickle cell anemia show no signs of anemia. They are simply resistant to malaria. That's why the trait has stuck around. (And if two parents are heterozygous for the trait, three of their four offspring will not show any signs of anemia.)

    Helping a population survive to breeding age is the very definition of a trait that is beneficial to a population. Which would you consider more successful in an evolutionary sense - a man who had three kids by age 25 before dying of a different disease, or a child who died at age 8 of malaria?
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    In other words you don't have anything to support your contention other than your own (uninformed) opinion.
    I see wilful ignorance is alive and well. Still.
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yet they're not dead. Not being dead is preferable to being dead. And in an area where there's a lot of malaria, they will do the best job of not being dead. Indeed, they will, in terms of evolution, do far better than a non-sickly but dead person from the same location.

Share This Page