|
Author
|
Topic: Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?
|
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 281 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
Off Topic AIDs discussion
I am saying that there are people whose job it is to study these diseases who say that the links between Aids and HIV are not so simply defined Well so far you have given one mathematician who did a PhD, had a handful of publications and then apparently gave up a career in science for a career in selling books to AIDs Denialists rethinkers.
I find it to be imprecise and misleading when Wounded King or Mr. Jack make these kind of blanket statements that the disease is perfectly understood. Since we are talking about being misleading maybe you can show where either Mr. Jack or myself said that it was perfectly understood? TTFN, WK
|
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3879 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: 11-14-2009
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Off Topic AIDs discussion
Well so far you have given one mathematician who did a PhD,... Is it a numbers game? if it is then I guess I am ahead one to zero. Instead of making some off the cuff comment immediately attempting to discredit someone you know nothing about, wouldn't it be a more beneficial use of your debate strategy time to simply refute the things that she said that you disagree with and why, instead of just guessing that she must be an unworthy authority? What's your authority? Bolder-Dash - 1 Woundedking-0 Also, its a bit late in the game to call this off topic, when others have used the Aids situation to comment on beneficial mutations and thus the entire status of Aids disease becomes part of that conversation, to question the conclusions drawn from its evidence. Bolder-dash-2 Woundedking-0
|
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
I don't think they are lying; I think they are wrong - as do the vast majority of the scientists with working knowledge of the area. You'll note that like many other scientists with what could kindly be described as unconventional views she's not a specialist in the area she's holding forth her views on - she's a PhD in Mathematics, not biology, not epidemiology, not viriology, not medicine, etc., etc.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2010 11:44 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002
|
Re: Off Topic AIDs discussion
Hi Bolder-dash, If you'd like to discuss the role of beneficial mutations regarding the AIDS virus, then that is on-topic. If you'd like to discuss the current state of knowledge about the AIDS virus and its relationship to HIV, then that is not on-topic, but you can propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics if you can find some way to tie it in to the creation/evolution debate.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2010 12:58 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 281 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
Re: Off Topic AIDs discussion
I think your score is a little off, how about the 4 peer reviewed papers from the scientific literature I already cited? Why don't you respond to those before I have to respond to a whole slew of assertions from the first aids denialist you glommed onto from google. I know that creationists/IDists prefer argument by cut and paste but still. As to being off topic, I don't see where your quote said anything about the evolution of resistance. Is this you starting Minemooseus topic drift game early? You sly dog. TTFN, WK
|
greyseal
Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 464 Joined: 08-11-2009
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
Hi bolder-dash
Do you know specifically what does the mutation that makes one immune to Aids do? I can only repeat what I have read online, better educated people than I can tell you far more, but with the mutation (probably one of many, but the best known is indeed the one that Wounded king Message 110 and Mr Jack Message 112 are talking about. Their explanations are far better than I could do.
My understanding is that there is not even a clear definition of what Aids actually is, so I think to say that one mutation can make someone resistant to something we can't define seems a little unclear. your understanding is wrong. That's the kindest thing I can say about it. ...and oh dear, I see you've abandoned all reason and started the incoherent gish galloping. Look, AIDS denialism is about as useful and correct as "climate skepticism", otherwise known as "climate change denialism". It is generally a mass of quote mines and ignorance by people who don't know what they're talking about and really should know better. If you're trying to keep some idiotic score with a gish galloping quote mined denialist copy-pasta then you have already lost. Edited by greyseal, : fixed msg to mid.
|
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3879 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: 11-14-2009
|
Re: Off Topic AIDs discussion
IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY A FEW SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the Hiv-Aids theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least. Excerpts: Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests: As a scientist who has studied AIDS for 16 years, I have determined that AIDS has little to do with science and is not even primarily a medical issue. AIDS is a sociological phenomenon held together by fear, creating a kind of medical McCarthyism that has transgressed and collapsed all the rules of science, and has imposed a brew of belief and pseudo-science on a vulnerable public. Dr. David Rasnick, PhD, Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor Developer, University of California The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma is the grandest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the Western world. AIDS is a cruel deception that is maintained because so many people are making money from it. Take away this money and the entire system of mythology will collapse. Sunday Times, London, 3 April 1994 I think that Duesberg and Root-Bernstein have it right [about what causes AIDS]. Anything or process that destroys the individual’s ability to mount an immune responseThis could be the use ofcocaine, heroin, amyl nitrite (poppers), amphetamines...malnutrition and lack of essential vitaminsbeing the recipient of whole blood or blood productsrepeated and multiple infections [all] are immunosuppressive. Dr. Charles Thomas, PhD, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. Former chair of the Cell Biology Department, Scripps Research Institute I do not believe that HIV, in and of itself, can cause AIDS. New York Daily News Sep 20, 1993 The assumption was made in 1984 that HIV caused AIDS and this has scarcely been challenged since. We don’t really know if HIV causes AIDS, nor have we seriously tried to find out. Virusmyth.net, Nov. 1991 It will surely lead to a scientifically healthier society if the burden of proof for HIV as a deadly pathogen is returned to where it belongs to those who maintain that HIV causes AIDS and others are allowed to pursue alternative approaches in the battle for eradication of the disease. Nature, 20 April 1989 ................ Bolder-dash- 2003 and counting Woundedking-1(?) Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3879 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: 11-14-2009
|
|
Message 128 of 166 (580645)
09-10-2010 12:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by Admin
09-10-2010 12:41 PM
|
|
Oh, sorry I didn't see that. Got it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by Admin, posted 09-10-2010 12:41 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
greyseal
Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 464 Joined: 08-11-2009
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
Hi Omnivorous,
I've been googling the subject for the past hour as well. Yeah, I had to google it as well - I remembered it but did not know the facts.
You'll find I am not averse to online research; it was not your numbers but your syntax I was unsure of, and it seemed more civil to ask than to research and assert. It's ok, I wasn't quite sure what you meant - whether you were wondering if the known mutation confers immunity to multiple strains of AIDS or whether the numbers I quoted were correct (which were off the top of my head, I think I got them about right, though it could be the African numbers are an order of magnitude lower). I blame it on the cold I currently have 
It's a fascinating subject: your numbers hold up. The resistance could also partially explain the greater impact of HIV on the African-American community Indeed, that's exactly what the information present appears to display - Africa is beyond the worst-case scenario because of the lack of immunity in the general population, compounded by ignorance and fear, superstition and quite frankly the meddling of the catholic church and islamic "scholars" who say that using a condom is "bad".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2010 10:10 AM | | Omnivorous has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 130 of 166 (580761)
09-11-2010 12:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by dennis780
09-09-2010 11:57 PM
|
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
You never hear people argue gravity. I guess you've never heard the theory of "intelligent falling", then? And actually people do argue gravity, for instance:
Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity - RationalWiki quote:
The sysops at Conservapedia are concerned about a link between scientific relativity (special and general relativity) and moral relativism, even though the concepts are utterly unrelated and have nothing in common other than the word "relativity".
Based on that comically misguided premise, and perhaps their mistrust of science in general (derived from their opposition to the biological theory of evolution), they attempt to denigrate the science of relativity as part of their anti-moral relativism agenda. As a result, the relativity-related articles at Conservapedia are riddled with incorrect interpretations, distortions of fact, out-of-context quotes from scientists and scientific journals, and elementary errors.
Some of the mistakes may be due to basic misunderstanding of the physics involved, but attempts to correct them have been met with admonishments, reversions and blockings from the administrators, suggesting wilful ignorance in their misrepresentation of relativity.
Like others have said, the fact that there is a "dispute" here doesn't do anything to buttress the underlying claims of evolution defenders attackers. I mean you can find people who believe the Moon landings are all hoaxes or that 9/11 was an inside job. Among informed experts, however, there's just no dispute about the fundamental accuracy of the theory of evolution and its explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. For good reason: there's more evidence for every aspect of evolution than for any other scientific theory, any finding of any court of law, or any medical diagnosis ever made by a doctor.
If evolution were 100% true, then there would not be HUNDREDS of books published to the contrary, and this forum would be dead fuckin quiet. It is 100% true, but it contradicts cherished religious dogma, so people like you have a vested interest in "challenging" it on entirely spurious grounds. If your notions of creationism are true they'll be true because of the evidence that supports them. But that evidence doesn't include the mere fact that you're making the argument. That's circular reasoning. Edited by crashfrog, : Corrected opposite word choice.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 11:57 PM | | dennis780 has not replied |
|
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 281 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
|
|
Message 131 of 166 (580780)
09-11-2010 4:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-11-2010 12:28 AM
|
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
Like others have said, the fact that there is a "dispute" here doesn't do anything to buttress the underlying claims of evolution defenders. I wouldn't think so since buttressing a claim would be to support it, perhaps the seige metaphor you were looking for was 'undermine'. TTFN, WK
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:28 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:14 PM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
Actually the typo is "defenders" instead of "attackers." Oops, editing message for clarity.
|
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: 03-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 133 of 166 (580810)
09-11-2010 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-11-2010 12:28 AM
|
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
Crashfrog writes: Among informed experts, however, there's just no dispute about the fundamental accuracy of the theory of evolution and its explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. For good reason: there's more evidence for every aspect of evolution than for any other scientific theory, any finding of any court of law, or any medical diagnosis ever made by a doctor. HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited by Admin, : Hide content-free text. Please, no replies.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:28 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: 03-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 134 of 166 (580860)
09-11-2010 7:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-11-2010 12:28 AM
|
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
ICDEISGN: The topic is about beneficial mutations, not the development of new functions. You stopped participating in the thread where new functions were the topic. Please return to that thread if you want to discuss new functions. Everyone else: Please, no replies to this message. --Admin Crashfrog writes: there's more evidence for every aspect of evolution than for any other scientific theory, any finding of any court of law, or any medical diagnosis ever made by a doctor. Then Crashfrog turns right around and writes:
If your notions... are true they'll be true because of the evidence that supports them. But that evidence doesn't include the mere fact that you're making the argument. That's circular reasoning. So lets see your evidence please. You said "every" aspect of evolution so I'll make it easy on you and ask for just one; Lets see the evidence that rm/ns is capable of producing a useful NEW function! ...lets see the mountain of evidence that surpasses "any finding of any court of law, or any medical diagnosis ever made by a doctor" Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:28 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: 03-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 135 of 166 (580896)
09-12-2010 9:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-11-2010 12:28 AM
|
|
Re: Cause of mutation?
Crashfrog writes: there's more evidence for every aspect of evolution than for any other scientific theory, any finding of any court of law, or any medical diagnosis ever made by a doctor. What an outrageous exaggeration!!! Then Crashfrog turns right around and says:
If your notions of creationism are true they'll be true because of the evidence that supports them. But that evidence doesn't include the mere fact that you're making the argument. That's circular reasoning. Lets see the mountain of evidence for beneficial mutations that surpasses "any finding of any court of law, or any medical diagnosis ever made by a doctor"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2010 12:28 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2