Drug testing in meds

[seeking1]

That said, it is a great example of how the theory of evolution has become cannon without being fully justified. We've assumed evolution is true, without conclusive evidence of it. Thanks for the great set up.

 

HAHAHAHAHA you have no understanding of systems biology!!!! :p

 

Once again itimebomb2, prove your claim. Give me articles from respected scientific journals that have undergone peer review, else you're just blowing steam.

 

Question: how did this switch from illegal drug use to evolution? I didn't read the wall of disagreeing text that came before all this.

 

Side note: There is no way anyone looking to be a doctor these days can avoid evolution. ITS IN THE MCAT MATERIAL.

[seeking1]

I actually believe in evolution

 

You cannot believe in evolution, no one can. It is a truism, deal with it.

 

See: mosquitoes and malaria; evolving bacterial infections; HIV.

[seeking1]

How's about this: I don't care what religion anyone is any more, whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Scientologist.

 

JUST COME UP WITH A GOOD ILLEGAL DRUG POLICY.

 

Use beliefs to guide your thinking, but comprehensive evidence to make sure your beliefs are correct.

[seeking1]

ITT: 4-year-old trolls arguing about adult problems.

[sfinch]

Don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis or the beginning of space-time. The theory of evolution describes how speciation occurs, and the proof for this has yet to be scientifically refuted.

 

 

 

It does exist everywhere - but so does fear, ignorance and superstition. If everyone was doing human sacrifices to appease the Gods, it wouldn't necessarily allude to human sacrifice being an adaptive strategy. There's far more to behaviour than genetics, and even to the extent that genetics influence behaviour - it may do so in a harmful, maladaptive way. Rape and murder exist everywhere and may increase fitness in some sense but that doesn't lend them any credibility. My point is that you can't use the argument of "its everywhere so it must have some benefit".

 

To address your second point - in the same way that we can't cherry pick the bad aspects of religion, you can't cherry pick the community aspect. Its a side effect of religious organization, it isn't inherent to religious thinking itself. There are communities that surround sports teams, political ideologies, celebrities etc. When I see someone who needs a hand, or someone to talk to, or anything, my motivation to seek them out isn't "I'm doing this because the bible/priest/parish requires that I do so". Religion isn't unique in the community sense. Forging communities, not unlike religion, seems to be part of human nature.

 

This isn't to take away from the value of your own experience with religion or the religious community though, just keep in mind it is subjective and doesn't hold weight in the scientific sense.

 

I said IN MY OPINION there is benefit to religion - probably because it existed everywhere. And I gave my rationale for it. Some of the most atheist cultures (Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge) were among the most brutal regimes in history as well. Widespread atheism in democracies is a recent phenomenum - we don't know the real consequences of it yet - other than much lowered birth rates and religious people of other backgrounds outbreeding them.

 

There may be some evolutionary advantages to rape and human sacrifice - but as a society we don't tolerate it anymore. But to compare rape to religion is disingenious (to be fair, religion tends to be pretty anti-rape in general anyways). Most Canadians are still religious. So religion is tolerated. It is often the atheists and agnostics who are the least tolerant people around.

 

I agree, little or nothing clearly refutes evolution. The proof for it's existance, in a biochemical stance, is very scanty though. Sure - we can prove small changes. NOTHING has shown how sea animals ultimately developed legs and lungs though. NOTHING has shown how the Darwin finches all got different beaks depending on which island they were on. Almost all proof for macro-evolution is circumstantial. Compelling? Yes. Absolute proof? You are off your rocker if you think so, and are no different that the Creation SCientists in your ridiculous postering.

[sfinch]

You cannot believe in evolution, no one can. It is a truism, deal with it.

 

See: mosquitoes and malaria; evolving bacterial infections; HIV.

 

Alot of people use the theory of evolution to claim differential racial abilities for intellect. Do you claim to believe that some races are inherently smarter than others as a truism. If you state evolution to be a truism, then it is just as legitimate to state that some races are smarter than others because of differential evolutionary pressures as a truisim, with documented anthropolicial evidence, IQ tests, and other proofs. Wait - someone at my university (Dr. Rushton) does do that! He bases the empirical differences between races on evolution, which he states as a fact.

 

Of course what you define as a truism is what you feel is politically correct, without having to defend something considered appalling and disgusting.

 

For the record, I do believe that evolution could be true. I also don't really believe in an innate difference between races - though an unrelenting belief in evolution would have to make one honestly consider such a thing to at least be possibly true.

[apache]

I'm sort of a left wing crazy, kind off, but the funny thing is that I'm conservative on many issues. That's all I have to say, and by the way, **** you buddy , straight from good old J Nash.

 

Evidence based is such a buzzword, when in reality it is selective evidence based in your case. You sound like one of those arrogant little donks on campus with a poorly made plackard pushing every far left wing agenda like it's the worlds most important thing - while not even listening to the other points of view. In some ways, you are no different that the right wing crazies that hate minorities and believe in God's law - the arrogant mindset is the same if not the actual opinions.

 

Sweden is a great example that you drug loving people love to ignore. It was a country with a very liberal drug policy in teh 60s/70s. The social problems that resulted from that led to one of the stricted anti-drug policies in the world, where even the use of pot is considered a crime, and police have the right to drug test anyone on the spot. Result? One of the lowest drug use rates for ANY country in the world - and basically near number 1 in the world for most social matters. Sweden is also a very open socialist society with liberal immigration laws, high taxes, great environmental record, anti-war and anti-poverty, feminist, and a great social safety net. They are also VERY ANTI DRUG.

 

Netherlands, while lax with pot - is in fact VERY strict with hard drugs within the nation (albeit, not withstanding being the largest producer of E in the world). Sentences for hard substances are harsh!

 

You are one of the most arrogant users on this site. You also will admire your MD and the perceived power it will give you, and push your views on non-MDs like there is no tomorrow. Your super drug loving agenda is one of the most dangerous agendas I can think off - but that is my opinion. You have essentially no tolerance for those that support the law - or at least its enforcement of it - and as a future physician that will have power, that is disturbing. Kind of like having a previous mafia member as the head of police.

 

And my racism?!? Look - I was inappropriately scared about moving to a small town because of experiences growing up, but racism is real - and your ignorant view that non-whites are all treated without discrimination is one of the most racist things I have ever seen. There were racist signs in my city during the recent mayoral campaign. But of course - you'll ignore that. And I come from a pretty humble background - so I'm not sure what elitism you talk off.

 

Canada does not have the Nixonian 'war on drugs'. We do not spend billions like the US does. I am very anti-war as well and I think the Afghan war is a waste of Canadian money. I am christian, but also am pro-choice, and don't want to push my religious values on others, especially on the public dime. Not all 'conservative's's are the same - and I actually tend to vote liberal (out west, alot of conservatives are also social conservatives, and sadly often bigoted against people of colour).

 

I don't know Ford very well - being non-Ontarian. He doesn't seem like a perfect person - probably a bit of a hypocrite. But being anti-crime, doesn't mean one did not do crime before - or having done bad stuff prevents you from changing you mind.

 

Drug legalization is advocated by Libertarians in the belief that one can do personal things, as long as it does not affect others. That is the problem. It often does effect other people. Drug use (and even legal alcohol use) can lead to MANY psych issues, social issues and risks to innocents in society, that society pays for. This includes drunk/drug impaired driving, child neglect, institutionalization (tax dollars for prisons or hospitals), and so forth. Maybe I would support your argument for decriminalization, if the taxpayer did not have to pay for the consequences of the actions of drug users. Anyways, the arguments for and against legalization is another issue.

 

The real issue of the thread was this: DRUG USE IS ILLEGAL. IF A DOCTOR/MEDICAL STUDENT IS CAUGHT USING ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES, YOUR CAREER MAY BE IN JEOPARDY, AND YOUR PROVINCIAL AGENCY WILL PROBABLY PUT IN ON YOUR PUBLIC RECORD. AND SOME PEOPLE, LIKE MYSELF, WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM REPORTING THEM TO AUTHORITIES IF IN MY OPINION, THINGS ARE REALLY OUT OF HAND.

[apache]

Whoa, did I hear truism, I'm impressed! Evolution is a truism, and our whole conception of reality is based on utilitarianism and the falsifiability theorem, which, paradoxically, can't be falsified, lol. I don't particularly believe in abiogenesis, guess that makes go from a left wing hippie to fundie, o well, labels r useless anyways

 

You cannot believe in evolution, no one can. It is a truism, deal with it.

 

See: mosquitoes and malaria; evolving bacterial infections; HIV.

[nosuperman]

I said IN MY OPINION there is benefit to religion - probably because it existed everywhere. And I gave my rationale for it. Some of the most atheist cultures (Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge) were among the most brutal regimes in history as well. Widespread atheism in democracies is a recent phenomenum - we don't know the real consequences of it yet - other than much lowered birth rates and religious people of other backgrounds outbreeding them.

 

There may be some evolutionary advantages to rape and human sacrifice - but as a society we don't tolerate it anymore. But to compare rape to religion is disingenious (to be fair, religion tends to be pretty anti-rape in general anyways). Most Canadians are still religious. So religion is tolerated. It is often the atheists and agnostics who are the least tolerant people around.

 

I agree, little or nothing clearly refutes evolution. The proof for it's existance, in a biochemical stance, is very scanty though. Sure - we can prove small changes. NOTHING has shown how sea animals ultimately developed legs and lungs though. NOTHING has shown how the Darwin finches all got different beaks depending on which island they were on. Almost all proof for macro-evolution is circumstantial. Compelling? Yes. Absolute proof? You are off your rocker if you think so, and are no different that the Creation SCientists in your ridiculous postering.

 

Actually galapagos finch beak-size evolution has recently been witnessed over the course of a single season.

 

I'm not saying "don't tolerate religion" all I said was those aren't arguments one way or another.

 

Regarding "atheist regimes" - the problem with any of those examples was not too much rational thought, or too much focus on evidence, it was humans using and abusing power. The same thing happens with religion, again you can't just cherry pick examples.

 

Lastly, there is no congruency within "atheist thought" - you can't define a regime as being "atheist", its a negative definition, simply telling you one thing the regime is NOT. You wouldn't say "Mao and Hitler weren't astronauts so non-astronaut regimes have historically been pretty terrible".

 

All that said I'm willing to concede that this may be pointless and is certainly off topic so baring any specific questions I'm going to get back to studying.

[seeking1]

Whoa, did I hear truism, I'm impressed! Evolution is a truism, and our whole conception of reality is based on utilitarianism and the falsifiability theorem, which, paradoxically, can't be falsified, lol. I don't particularly believe in abiogenesis, guess that makes go from a left wing hippie to fundie, o well, labels r useless anyways

 

Funny, cause I got the truism thing from you, I believe, in a previous evolution discussion. I agree, labels are useless, usually just rhetoric. Your lack of belief in abiogenesis is meaningless to me.

[A-Stark]

Alot of people use the theory of evolution to claim differential racial abilities for intellect. Do you claim to believe that some races are inherently smarter than others as a truism. If you state evolution to be a truism, then it is just as legitimate to state that some races are smarter than others because of differential evolutionary pressures as a truisim, with documented anthropolicial evidence, IQ tests, and other proofs. Wait - someone at my university (Dr. Rushton) does do that! He bases the empirical differences between races on evolution, which he states as a fact.

 

Of course what you define as a truism is what you feel is politically correct, without having to defend something considered appalling and disgusting.

 

For the record, I do believe that evolution could be true. I also don't really believe in an innate difference between races - though an unrelenting belief in evolution would have to make one honestly consider such a thing to at least be possibly true.

 

You have officially jumped the shark, though maybe that really happened a few pages ago. This "god of the gaps" **** is utter garbage - and so is Rushton's racially-motivated research.

[seeking1]

I agree, little or nothing clearly refutes evolution. The proof for it's existance, in a biochemical stance, is very scanty though. Sure - we can prove small changes. NOTHING has shown how sea animals ultimately developed legs and lungs though. NOTHING has shown how the Darwin finches all got different beaks depending on which island they were on. Almost all proof for macro-evolution is circumstantial. Compelling? Yes. Absolute proof? You are off your rocker if you think so, and are no different that the Creation SCientists in your ridiculous postering.

 

...you really haven't been paying attention to the past few years in protein-evolution research, have you????

[seeking1]

Alot of people use the theory of evolution to claim differential racial abilities for intellect. Do you claim to believe that some races are inherently smarter than others as a truism. If you state evolution to be a truism, then it is just as legitimate to state that some races are smarter than others because of differential evolutionary pressures as a truisim, with documented anthropolicial evidence, IQ tests, and other proofs. Wait - someone at my university (Dr. Rushton) does do that! He bases the empirical differences between races on evolution, which he states as a fact.

 

Of course what you define as a truism is what you feel is politically correct, without having to defend something considered appalling and disgusting.

 

lol, that man's been torn apart by people in his own field for his junk research. Brain size equals intelligence??? PROVE IT.

 

As geneticists will be quick to point out, there really isn't much in terms of race biologically. The best thing that corresponds to that is haplotypes, and it turns out the major differences between two people's genes is when they are of the same race, not different ones. This means that if you are white, there is more difference between you and another white person's genes than there is between you and a black person. Although against common sense, this follows from evolutionary premises. Due to greater mating rates between two white people, genetic material experiences more crossing over.

 

IQ tests as proof of evolution hardly ever fly. IQ is an invention of us humans, it means nothing in nature and is a relative measure. It changes from year to year and the average is always set at 100, for god's sake.

 

What I define as a truism is something that applies almost universally yet still has limits. For example, matter has different states, mostly constrained to solid, liquid and gas, but in some places it is plasma. This is the nature of science: to deal with uncertainty. Evolution does just that, and can be disproven, but hasn't been.

[sfinch]

You have officially jumped the shark, though maybe that really happened a few pages ago. This "god of the gaps" **** is utter garbage - and so is Rushton's racially-motivated research.

 

There is evidence in published peer reviewed journals that supports Rushton's beliefs, which I think are not accurate. I don't believe his work to be a truism.

 

The same is with the conventional belief of macro-evolution. Maybe future evidence will be more convincing, but generally it is preaching to the choir in most evolutionary research (yes, funny anecdote).

 

Basic cliffs:

 

If you are a medical student/physican and you use illegal drugs - you risk your own career/future. Yes, alot of the people on this board are very pro-drugs because it is "cool for young people". The cops and general public may not think so.

 

Christians are a large part of our population, and many people are conservatives. They are often attacked at very high rates, and ridiculed, but self righteous lefties that are totally convinced in a godless world. Even if evolution is beyond dispute, not one person here is a true evolutionary scientist. The absolute truths of today are often the fallacies of the future. ALot of very nice caring people are conservative, don't like using drugs, and are christian.

 

And Muse, if I see you smoking up at medgames, you can be sure that you will know who I am.

[A-Stark]

Whoa, did I hear truism, I'm impressed! Evolution is a truism, and our whole conception of reality is based on utilitarianism and the falsifiability theorem, which, paradoxically, can't be falsified, lol. I don't particularly believe in abiogenesis, guess that makes go from a left wing hippie to fundie, o well, labels r useless anyways

 

"Truism" is certainly not the right word for it by any stretch, but "evolution" is a thoroughly documented fact backed up an overwhelming amount of remarkably convincing research. Throwing around a bunch of empty comments about "utilitarianism" and "falsifiability" in the context of epistemological navel-gazing is completely pointless.

 

As for drug policy, I'm not aware that there's much support for eliminating all legislation or moving to full legalization. But the "war on drugs" has not only failed, it fails to address the real problem - namely substance abuse, and the continued war on services for the most vulnerable and severely addicted by, for example, the Harper government, as evidenced by their unsupportable opposition to this place.

[seeking1]

There is evidence in published peer reviewed journals that supports Rushton's beliefs, which I think are not accurate. I don't believe his work to be a truism.

 

The same is with the conventional belief of macro-evolution. Maybe future evidence will be more convincing, but generally it is preaching to the choir in most evolutionary research (yes, funny anecdote).

 

Please give me proof from these "published peer-reviewed journals" that you cite. Also explain the issues with the proof that you cite. That is how science works.

 

Ostensibly, you are a smart university student who has access to journals, and thus can meet the task.

[seeking1]

can't be falsified, lol.

 

Evolution can be falsified. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't be.

[itimebomb2]

At this point I'm tempted to say you're trolling. You have to know that you're misrepresenting science here. Nobody just said "Hey lets make up a theory and wait until its refuted." The discovery of DNA and gene mutation, the sequencing of genomes, the direct observations of speciation in the wild, the direct measurement of genetic drift, all of these things are predicted by and therefor strengthen the theory of evolution.

 

The part of my post that you've quoted refers to the fact that in light of conflicting evidence, theories are amended or abandoned. What I said was no evidence has caused us to question the validity of evolution.

 

The law of gravity predicts that larger objects should have a stronger gravitational force. If voyager 2 flew by Jupiter and didn't notice a gravitational force then we'd have to examine what the hell was going on and perhaps amend our understanding. That didn't happen with voyager 2 and it has yet to happen with evolution.

 

The process of stating "This is true and you can't prove it wrong" is far from scientific (though it is reminiscent of a certain ancient tribe of semi-literate desert dwellers). Theories are constantly amended or abandoned to accommodate new evidence. This is why science has advanced at explaining the world so successfully and why the realm of questions "answered" by religion is constantly shrinking.

 

Here's where my evidence comes in - name me one example of observed speciation in the wild - name just one. In my research, I've never come across a single example of when scientists have conclusively observed speciation. Thus far, it is total speculation.

 

Genetic drift as an argument for speciation, again, is pure theory - not a single example of a new specie coming into existence due to genetic drift has ever been recorded. All of the common examples of genetic drift (industrial melanism, viral "evolution", sickle cell anemia) are all examples of varying prevalences of genomes within a given gene pool - but none of those are examples of new speciation due to genetic drift.

 

On to gene mutation - yes, we've observed gene mutation. Base pair mutations - small numbers of nucleotides being displaced, more often than not having no impact on phenotype, and when they do, almost always resulting in a negative change. Again, not a single citable example of improvement has ever been documented due to gene mutation, let alone the concept of a totally new organ or functional structure that can confer both 1) advantage in survival, or 2) enough of a difference to constitute a new species, rather than just a slightly stronger version of the same specie (i.e. Shwarzenegger vs. Stephen Hawkings). Why is this? It's because useful structural features do NOT result from random mutations - a few random genetic changes won't result in anything useful. Evolution of a new, structural function requires THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of coordiinated, random mutations - and these all have to happen AT THE SAME TIME, in the same creature. The evolution of a structure like a wing has to take place all at one - in a single creature - a single formation of a gamete or a mating of two gametes. Why? Because thousands of consecutive genetic changes could never get passed on consecutively without being diluted out, since individual genetic mutations would confer no advantage in survival until it manifested as a full, structural function.

 

Now, we could go on into a discussion about gradual vs punctuated equilibria in evolution... look into something called the Cambrian explosion - how did all of these new species "explode" out of seemingly no where, all at once? If evolution is meant to be a series of random mutations, there is no good reason for a great number of new species to all come into existence all at once.

 

Those are just a few logical arguments against evolution, since people are so desperate to know.

 

HAHAHAHAHA you have no understanding of systems biology!!!! :p

 

Once again itimebomb2, prove your claim. Give me articles from respected scientific journals that have undergone peer review, else you're just blowing steam.

 

Question: how did this switch from illegal drug use to evolution? I didn't read the wall of disagreeing text that came before all this.

 

Side note: There is no way anyone looking to be a doctor these days can avoid evolution. ITS IN THE MCAT MATERIAL.

 

Not just the MCAT material, but in medical school as well - you can barely go a day without hearing about evolution - but biology and medicine doesn't NEED evolution.

 

There is a widespread confusion between purposeful structure and function, and presuming that it is due to evolution. For example, the complex troponin/tropomyosin interactions with calcium and the various calcium regulating pumps in the neuromuscular system appear to be "proof" that evolution drove these synergistic systems into existence. However, this is all because we have an a priori view that evolution is the only logical mechanism that could have caused this. The counter is that these complex mechanisms interact perfectly because they were designed to do so, which is just as logical an argument (provided that you can believe there is a God). If your a priori beliefs begin with the existence of God (which we have to agree to disagree upon here...), then the relation between structure and function of organs and systems is obvious - it was designed to work! Does that make any sense?

 

If not, maybe the look up a good explanation of the watch and the watchmaker theory -its a philisophical argument.

[sfinch]

lol, that man's been torn apart by people in his own field for his junk research. Brain size equals intelligence??? PROVE IT.

 

As geneticists will be quick to point out, there really isn't much in terms of race biologically. The best thing that corresponds to that is haplotypes, and it turns out the major differences between two people's genes is when they are of the same race, not different ones. This means that if you are white, there is more difference between you and another white person's genes than there is between you and a black person. Although against common sense, this follows from evolutionary premises. Due to greater mating rates between two white people, genetic material experiences more crossing over.

 

IQ tests as proof of evolution hardly ever fly. IQ is an invention of us humans, it means nothing in nature and is a relative measure. It changes from year to year and the average is always set at 100, for god's sake.

 

What I define as a truism is something that applies almost universally yet still has limits. For example, matter has different states, mostly constrained to solid, liquid and gas, but in some places it is plasma. This is the nature of science: to deal with uncertainty. Evolution does just that, and can be disproven, but hasn't been.

 

Actually, while there is greater genetic variation between individuals, the constant differences between people are consistent with race. Race is really like one big family. If you want a match for a bone marrow - you will almost guarantee to find it in your race - cross racial bone marrow matches are unheard off (unless there is known mixing). If you are black, you are not a great candidate for calcium channel blockers. If you are an asian female, you much more likely to respond to some lung cancer treatments than those of other races. If you are south asian, irrespective of diet, you are much more likely to develop metabolic syndrome. And skeletal differences are almost set in stone to the point that a forensic pathologist can simply use most single bones to comment on a victim's race. In other words, racial differences are real - we don't need to be socially acclimatized to believe that japanese look signicantly different than nigerians.

 

If you believe in evolution, then you must also believe that if Africa and Europe were kept more distant for a longer period of time, the humans in both places would or could evolve into different species. That makes sense to me. And because humans are probably smarter than chimpanzees despite a not too distant common ancestor, then these two different human races might have intellectual differences. And some of these difference might exist BEFORE 'official' speciacion starts or begins. In the eyes of some, this is considered common sense. Heck, different dog breeds, despite being the same species, vary in average obedience, longevity, disease, and intelligence.

 

Sub Saharan Africa was seperated from Europe which was Seperated from Far East Asia, with minimal gene interflow, for an estimated 10000 + years until about 400-500 years ago. If you believe in evolution, and you believe that humans are subject to specieciation because of evolution like other animals, then you must also contend that different averages could exist between the races, including 'intellect'.

 

Of course you will not believe in that possibility at all. But you will still absolutely believe in evolution.

 

FYI: we share 99% of the DNA of a chimpanzee - certainly we have more than inconsequential differences to a Chimpanzee in regards to intelligence, physical abilities, and so forth. Some of the common gene variations between random humans of the same 'race' are on inconsequential genes that do not lead to a variation in the end product protein.

[sfinch]

Please give me proof from these "published peer-reviewed journals" that you cite. Also explain the issues with the proof that you cite. That is how science works.

 

Ostensibly, you are a smart university student who has access to journals, and thus can meet the task.

 

I don't believe in Ruston at all. He is a jerk in my opinion, pushing his own agenda. His work has been published in multiple peer reviewed journals though. His main work is actually not race based - but it's the part that gets highlighted the most.

 

His website with cited articles is as follows: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

 

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2008%20Med%20Hypotheses.pdf

[A-Stark]

Here's where my evidence comes in - name me one example of observed speciation in the wild - name just one. In my research, I've never come across a single example of when scientists have conclusively observed speciation. Thus far, it is total speculation.

 

Even the most cursory look at the relevant Wikipedia article demonstrates that this is just the usual "skeptical" non-argument based on general ignorance of existing research.

 

Genetic drift as an argument for speciation, again, is pure theory - not a single example of a new specie coming into existence due to genetic drift has ever been recorded. All of the common examples of genetic drift (industrial melanism, viral "evolution", sickle cell anemia) are all examples of varying prevalences of genomes within a given gene pool - but none of those are examples of new speciation due to genetic drift.

 

Is genetic drift actually an argument for speciation? I was under the impression that the primary determinants of evolutionary direction are selective pressures and the structural distributions of populations (greatly simplified). What does this have to do with autosomal traits like sickle cell? Going to call this a straw man.

 

On to gene mutation - yes, we've observed gene mutation. Base pair mutations - small numbers of nucleotides being displaced, more often than not having no impact on phenotype, and when they do, almost always resulting in a negative change. Again, not a single citable example of improvement has ever been documented due to gene mutation, let alone the concept of a totally new organ or functional structure that can confer both 1) advantage in survival, or 2) enough of a difference to constitute a new species, rather than just a slightly stronger version of the same specie (i.e. Shwarzenegger vs. Stephen Hawkings). Why is this? It's because useful structural features do NOT result from random mutations - a few random genetic changes won't result in anything useful. Evolution of a new, structural function requires THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of coordiinated, random mutations - and these all have to happen AT THE SAME TIME, in the same creature. The evolution of a structure like a wing has to take place all at one - in a single creature - a single formation of a gamete or a mating of two gametes. Why? Because thousands of consecutive genetic changes could never get passed on consecutively without being diluted out, since individual genetic mutations would confer no advantage in survival until it manifested as a full, structural function.

 

I'm curious why you insist that a "wing" must evolve instantaneously. What part of "modified with descent" don't you get?

 

Now, we could go on into a discussion about gradual vs punctuated equilibria in evolution... look into something called the Cambrian explosion - how did all of these new species "explode" out of seemingly no where, all at once? If evolution is meant to be a series of random mutations, there is no good reason for a great number of new species to all come into existence all at once.

 

No good reason? Based on your lay understanding?

 

Those are just a few logical arguments against evolution, since people are so desperate to know.

 

Funny, I always thought that an argument from ignorance is no argument at all. The counterargument that "God did it" because we don't know all the mechanisms (beyond baseless claims that it's "impossible") is just a fallacy, nothing more.

 

Not just the MCAT material, but in medical school as well - you can barely go a day without hearing about evolution - but biology and medicine doesn't NEED evolution.

 

Evolution is the fundamental unifying concept behind biological life in the past, present, and future. It's debatable how much biology you really need in medicine, but subjects like embryology don't make a whole lot of sense outside an evolutionary context.

 

There is a widespread confusion between purposeful structure and function, and presuming that it is due to evolution. For example, the complex troponin/tropomyosin interactions with calcium and the various calcium regulating pumps in the neuromuscular system appear to be "proof" that evolution drove these synergistic systems into existence. However, this is all because we have an a priori view that evolution is the only logical mechanism that could have caused this. The counter is that these complex mechanisms interact perfectly because they were designed to do so, which is just as logical an argument (provided that you can believe there is a God). If your a priori beliefs begin with the existence of God (which we have to agree to disagree upon here...), then the relation between structure and function of organs and systems is obvious - it was designed to work! Does that make any sense?

 

If not, maybe the look up a good explanation of the watch and the watchmaker theory -its a philisophical argument.

 

Evolution is not a "mechanism" but a set of them operating in a changing environment with dependence on previous states going back multiple generations. In other words, it's very complicated. Invoking God as a valid assumption is simply and unequivocally unsupportable. There really cannot be any debate on that either. Lots of things that are "designed" don't work perfectly, and that surely goes for any sphere of biological life. We're constantly breaking down and wearing out. While we can point to things that work, that is not the same as pointing to things that work ideally or even well. What kind of God would design people with an appendix prone to obstruction and inflammation or a method of gestation and childbirth which in the past frequently killed both mother and child?

 

Anyway, you use "proof" in entirely the wrong sense. We can theorize why certain structures would evolve in certain ways that seem consistent with physical and chemical phenomena, something that is entirely reasonable and justifiable. If atoms work one way, and molecules and reactions another related way, then attributing "higher level" interactions to these more basic forces is called good science. God is not an explanation for anything. Might as well say magic or miasma or Apollo. None would have any more or any less explanatory power (i.e. zero).

[itimebomb2]

I don't believe in Ruston at all. He is a jerk in my opinion, pushing his own agenda. His work has been published in multiple peer reviewed journals though. His main work is actually not race based - but it's the part that gets highlighted the most.

 

His website with cited articles is as follows: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

 

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2008%20Med%20Hypotheses.pdf

 

 

Wow. Table 2 of that paper is a goldmine for incendiary stereotypes. Really interesting. Didn't read the whole paper, but having studied some African culture and from anecdotal experiences in Africa, I can certainly see why some of the outcome measures (esp IQ tests, sampling of university students, reaction tests) are extremely biased against Africans. Nevertheless, some of the more objective outcome measures are quite interesting.

[itimebomb2]

Even the most cursory look at the relevant Wikipedia article demonstrates that this is just the usual "skeptical" non-argument based on general ignorance of existing research.

 

The refutation of that claim is long and complex, and I don't feel comfortable going into the dialogue in this setting. But suffice it to say that measurements of "new observed species" is open to a great deal of subjective interpretation, as well as prone to fallacy.

 

Is genetic drift actually an argument for speciation? I was under the impression that the primary determinants of evolutionary direction are selective pressures and the structural distributions of populations (greatly simplified). What does this have to do with autosomal traits like sickle cell? Going to call this a straw man.

 

To remind you, sickle cell disease is often cited as an example of genetic drift, due to its increased prevalence in sub-saharan Africa (structural distribution) and its protective effects against malaria (selective pressure)

 

I'm curious why you insist that a "wing" must evolve instantaneously. What part of "modified with descent" don't you get?

 

Stephen Jay Gould once commented on modification with descent: "An ancient animal with 5% of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 percent vision. And actually I don't think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 percent as good as your or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 percent vision better than total blindness... and so on...

 

A cute little argument, right? But the fallacy here is that 5% of an eye is NOT the same as 5% of vision. In fact, if you had 5% of the genes for an eye, you would have no vision at all, and you wouldn't until you had most, if not all of the genes for a complete eye. Just think of the minor genetic variations we know to completely debilitate a person. Now, do you believe its conceivable that over the course several thousand phenotypic mutations (none of which have ever been uncovered by archeology), that the present day eye was actually a gradual mutation of thousands of semi-useful, non-seeing structures?

 

No good reason? Based on your lay understanding?

 

The precambrian explosion is cited in every archeological source I've ever looked at as a great mystery. Conjectures are given, at best, but most evolutionists would concede that the Precambrian explosion represents a majour difficlulty in evolutionary thinking (hence, its fame).

 

Funny, I always thought that an argument from ignorance is no argument at all. The counterargument that "God did it" because we don't know all the mechanisms (beyond baseless claims that it's "impossible") is just a fallacy, nothing more.

 

The argument that "God did it" does not come from not knowing. The conclusion that there is a God comes from evidence that we can plainly see in nature - that being that the natural world is purposeful, not random.

 

Evolution is the fundamental unifying concept behind biological life in the past, present, and future. It's debatable how much biology you really need in medicine, but subjects like embryology don't make a whole lot of sense outside an evolutionary context.

 

The observation that animals of different species look the same as embryos and fetuses again, can be attributed to design, and not necessarily evolution. Similar to how automobiles are created - having almost identical interior components until fully developed, it is not only concievable but logical that a God which creates beings would do so using common building blocks, so as to employ order into an environment.

 

Evolution is not a "mechanism" but a set of them operating in a changing environment with dependence on previous states going back multiple generations. In other words, it's very complicated. Invoking God as a valid assumption is simply and unequivocally unsupportable. There really cannot be any debate on that either. Lots of things that are "designed" don't work perfectly, and that surely goes for any sphere of biological life. We're constantly breaking down and wearing out. While we can point to things that work, that is not the same as pointing to things that work ideally or even well. What kind of God would design people with an appendix prone to obstruction and inflammation or a method of gestation and childbirth which in the past frequently killed both mother and child?

 

The debate over the existence of God won't be won or lost in the biomedical arena, but in the philisophical arena.

 

I'd like to invoke the Big Bang Theory here - Up until the 1930s, scientists such as yourself could justifiably (and almost irrefutably) make the claim that the universe has always existed - that the question of "where did this all come from?" would be totally moot and self-defeating. However, with the advent of modern astronomy and physics, mathemeticians and astronomers have now quantifiably made observations that basically conclude that the universe is in constant expansion - this expansion can be measured, and the rate of increase is steady. Therefore, im measuring these values, physicists have determined that the universe began as a singularity- hence, the big bang theory. Now, no logical scientist can justifiably claim that the universe just "was, and is, and always will be".

 

The existence of God is not as ridiculous an assumption as you make it out to be.

 

 

Anyway, you use "proof" in entirely the wrong sense. We can theorize why certain structures would evolve in certain ways that seem consistent with physical and chemical phenomena, something that is entirely reasonable and justifiable. If atoms work one way, and molecules and reactions another related way, then attributing "higher level" interactions to these more basic forces is called good science. God is not an explanation for anything. Might as well say magic or miasma or Apollo. None would have any more or any less explanatory power (i.e. zero).

 

see bolded parts above.

[nosuperman]

Here's where my evidence comes in....

 

Yes there are plenty of examples of observed speciation. They are not vital to the theory but as we discover more and more it obviously strengthens it. That being said I doubt you'd be persuaded by evidence . The sheer fact that you need "examples" alludes to your misunderstanding of the theory. Its math, physics and chemistry. It HAS to be to the case given the physical laws and the nature of probability. It works better than any other theory. The discover of genes, mutations and the mechanism of heredity fit perfectly with the theory, rather than casting doubt upon it. It has more supporting data and predictive power than any other theory. In science, this is what we go with until an even better theory comes along. I haven't see a better theory that isn't some version of a wizard casting a spell that makes everyone happen because he says so.

 

Unfortunately I do have midterms to study for, but I'll provide you with evidence for claim to the observed speciation after the weekend. I can't spend more time on this. Cheers!

[itimebomb2]

I very much respect the view that in science, no better explanation has been put forward than the theory of evolution as to the genesis of humanity or life. From a scientific perspective, I certainly agree with that. However, my argument is that there are significant holes in the evolution theory, and that these holes should cast doubt upon the use of science as the ultimate determinant of knowledge. Science makes no claim to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. Since the existence of God would effectively preclude the authority of science, it would not be unwise for us to exercise a certain degree of suspicion as to the reliability of our sense and scientific method to discovering fundamental truths about the universe.

 

I've also spent WAY too much time arguing on this forum. Gotta learn something about cardiovascular drugs. Peace.

 

Yes there are plenty of examples of observed speciation. They are not vital to the theory but as we discover more and more it obviously strengthens it. That being said I doubt you'd be persuaded by evidence . The sheer fact that you need "examples" alludes to your misunderstanding of the theory. Its math, physics and chemistry. It HAS to be to the case given the physical laws and the nature of probability. It works better than any other theory. The discover of genes, mutations and the mechanism of heredity fit perfectly with the theory, rather than casting doubt upon it. It has more supporting data and predictive power than any other theory. In science, this is what we go with until an even better theory comes along. I haven't see a better theory that isn't some version of a wizard casting a spell that makes everyone happen because he says so.

 

Unfortunately I do have midterms to study for, but I'll provide you with evidence for claim to the observed speciation after the weekend. I can't spend more time on this. Cheers!