[Dark Helmet]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...y_50_myths.php


"51. Evolution can never be proven because we didn't see it occur."

Hilarious and true

[smacintush]

28) Charles Darwin is Satan.

[Landos Mustache]

"38) Evolution can't explain love."

I love it

[ironknee]

[jckalen]

to be fair, that's all humor started from another forum. But to be honest, some of it is really how some creationists think

[Cadaver]

18) If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?

Darwin: "Damn! I guess evolution didn't happen. Why didn't I think of that?!"

[Jawbone54]

Question...

If you get upset when Christians try to convert you, is it not understandable for Christians to get upset when you try to force the "idiot" label on them for not believing in evolution [edited]?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Question...

If you get upset when Christians try to convert you, is it not understandable for Christians to get upset when you try to force the "idiot" label on them for not believing in atheism?

People who espouse these myths are idiots. And what does atheism have to do with this thread? Nothing...

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Saetre

People who espouse these myths are idiots. And what does atheism have to do with this thread? Nothing...

This is quite ironic...

I meant to say "evolution," which kind of falls in line with one of the myths...that evolution and atheism aren't necessarily associated. And by the way...name me a single atheists that doesn't believe in evolution. And almost all evolutionists that I personally know are atheists. An exception is Neal Boortz.

But "evolution" was in my mind when I wrote it.

[EDIT] Oh, and your pretentious response proves my point.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Question...

If you get upset when Christians try to convert you, is it not understandable for Christians to get upset when you try to force the "idiot" label on them for not believing in evolution [edited]?

Why do Christianity and Evolution have to be at odds with one another?

[Uncle Skeleton]

He's not saying they're at odds, he's using an analogy.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This is quite ironic...

I meant to say "evolution," which kind of falls in line with one of the myths...that evolution and atheism aren't necessarily associated. And by the way...name me a single atheists that doesn't believe in evolution. And almost all evolutionists that I personally know are atheists. An exception is Neal Boortz.

But "evolution" was in my mind when I wrote it.

[EDIT] Oh, and your pretentious response proves my point.

Yes, I noticed the irony myself. What is an evolutionist? A scientist that studies evolution or a layperson who accepts the theory? I don't know any atheists who don't accept evolution. I imagine such an individual would have to be pretty confused (or ahead of their time!). I've studied evolution with plenty of students who are theists. I don't personally know any influential evolutionary biologists who are theists, but I'm sure there must be some.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This is quite ironic...

I meant to say "evolution," which kind of falls in line with one of the myths...that evolution and atheism aren't necessarily associated. And by the way...name me a single atheists that doesn't believe in evolution. And almost all evolutionists that I personally know are atheists. An exception is Neal Boortz.

Name me a single atheist who doesn't accept gravity. Oh, you can't? That proves gravity and atheism are related, right?

Of course, pretty much everyone accepts gravity, because none of the major religions have started a holy war about gravity yet. But suppose somewhere there was some religion that came up with its own crazy explanation for why things fall down. Unless there was some actual scientific basis for their belief, which there almost certainly wouldn't be, atheists, who would not be members of this hypothetical religion, would not have the one incentive to follow such a belief. Would gravity then be equivalent to atheism? Only in the mind of someone in that hypothetical religion who saw the entire world as "us vs. them".

Myself, I've met far more Christians that accepted evolution than atheists, although that's mostly because most people in this country are Christians, and also because most sane people accept evolution. But that's all anecdotal.

[Chuckit]

Name me a single atheist who belongs the the Flat Earth Society.

I guess believing in a round world is an atheist thing now too.

[christ]

Gravity is a myth - the earth sucks.

For myself, I accept that things evolve, but I consider that evolution (in its current form) is not a complete explanation of the observable universe and the history of its development. I would actively encourage discussion and theorising about what could fill the gaps in the theory that would make up a complete explanation, but I guess that makes me an idiot. An agnostic idiot, but still an idiot.

Blind faith in evolution, or idiocy? I guess I choose idiocy.

I am often irritated by people that discourage discussion of any topic that they believe they have all of the answers to, by throwing around insults like 'idiot' to describe those that refuse to accept the received wisdom, and are actively seeking answers - my guess is that Darwin would have felt the same as me, which is why he developed his theory, which back then was seen as 'idiocy' by the scientific community.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Name me a single atheist who doesn't accept gravity. Oh, you can't? That proves gravity and atheism are related, right?

explain how gravity works. Explain how evolution works. There's a bit of a difference. One has many more facets and exceptions/rules than the other.

Of course, pretty much everyone accepts gravity, because none of the major religions have started a holy war about gravity yet. But suppose somewhere there was some religion that came up with its own crazy explanation for why things fall down.

Here the notion is that religion has eyes moving to and fro to contradict science for nothing more than the sake of it. A great many religious people are practicing scientists that have contributed greatly to the field. Some explanations are crazier than others.

Unless there was some actual scientific basis for their belief, which there almost certainly wouldn't be, atheists, who would not be members of this hypothetical religion, would not have the one incentive to follow such a belief. Would gravity then be equivalent to atheism? Only in the mind of someone in that hypothetical religion who saw the entire world as "us vs. them".

The relationship does work both ways. If one insists on using science to attack religion, they are no less reprehensible in my opinion than one who would use religion to attack science.

Myself, I've met far more Christians that accepted evolution than atheists, although that's mostly because most people in this country are Christians, and also because most sane people accept evolution. But that's all anecdotal.

Laypeople are laypeople. I don't think it's fair to gauge one's sanity by whether or not they accept evolution. This is a pretty good example of using science to attack others.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

explain how gravity works. Explain how evolution works. There's a bit of a difference. One has many more facets and exceptions/rules than the other.

I'm no physicist (or biologist), but my understanding is that the mechanisms behind how evolution works is better understood and much less debated than the mechanism behind how gravity works.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The relationship does work both ways. If one insists on using science to attack religion, they are no less reprehensible in my opinion than one who would use religion to attack science.

How do you figure?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

explain how gravity works. Explain how evolution works. There's a bit of a difference. One has many more facets and exceptions/rules than the other.

Yep, evolution does. Just read up on natural selection and all that stuff. A lot of it is explained and understood. Of course, we don't know all about the mechanisms, but we do know a decent amount.

No one knows for sure how gravity works. We have a bunch of conflicting hypotheses on that one. Does it work through curvature of space? Or does it involve graviton particles (which, to the best of my knowledge, have never been detected)? No one's quite sure yet. Evolution's mechanisms are on far more solid ground than gravity's.

The one thing we do know about gravity is that it does happen. The equation F=Gm1m2/r^2 has always worked every time we've tried it. Of course, we also know that evolution does happen. All the debate is about the mechanisms, of which we know a lot more of evolution's than gravity's.

Here the notion is that religion has eyes moving to and fro to contradict science for nothing more than the sake of it. A great many religious people are practicing scientists that have contributed greatly to the field. Some explanations are crazier than others.

Yes, a great many religious people are not creationists. I never said all religious people were. However, you can't deny that the entire reason to oppose evolution is religious - if Genesis didn't say that six days stuff, you'd have no problem with it.

The relationship does work both ways. If one insists on using science to attack religion, they are no less reprehensible in my opinion than one who would use religion to attack science.

What you need to understand is that if religion tries to attack science, there is of course going to be a backlash. That's just a natural, human thing. You constantly attack someone, you get them pissed off, and they attack back.

With that said, pointing out that creationism isn't science, or that creationism is religiously motivated, or otherwise refuting the claims of creationists does not constitute attacking religion. So far, there has been no attacking of religion in this thread (there might be, if Ca$h or lpmckenna shows up).

Laypeople are laypeople. I don't think it's fair to gauge one's sanity by whether or not they accept evolution. This is a pretty good example of using science to attack others.

Not using it as a gauge - just saying that most sane people (cause) will accept evolution (effect). Not the other way around. I definitely would not say that most people who accept evolution are sane.

Anyway, I don't want to get into another flame war with you (which, judging from past experiences, is what will quickly result if I try to argue with you), so if you're going to be posting in here, I'm going to duck out of this discussion. I have no desire to get in another scream-fest with a Discovery Institute parrot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Not using it as a gauge - just saying that most sane people (cause) will accept evolution (effect). Not the other way around. I definitely would not say that most people who accept evolution are sane.

What it seemed you said was if you're sane, you'll accept evolution. I disagreed with your statement, not on evolution in general. I think evolution is perfectly acceptable and is extremely useful for employing scientific methodology.

Anyway, I don't want to get into another flame war with you (which, judging from past experiences, is what will quickly result if I try to argue with you), so if you're going to be posting in here, I'm going to duck out of this discussion. I have no desire to get in another scream-fest with a Discovery Institute parrot.

I don't recall a scream-fest or parroting the Discovery Institute. Have I accused anyone of parroting TalkOrigins?

Perhaps it's your inability to argue without using insults that caused tension. You don't need to duck out. This thread is probably not going to hold my attention. Besides, there's not much more on the subject that hasn't been argued in at least 75 other pages of MacNN archives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm no physicist (or biologist), but my understanding is that the mechanisms behind how evolution works is better understood and much less debated than the mechanism behind how gravity works.

Gravity is measurable, evolution is not. Gravity is reproducible, evolution is not. I have no problems with evolution, I'm just stating fact.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How do you figure?

Science should not be used to attack religion because to do so would employ philosophy which is outside the realm of science. Religion should not be used to attack anything, particularly science because science is not an adversary to religion. People are. To take this fight (the way they often do) simply paints religion in a negative light when it's not necessary.

With my religion, 6-day Creation and denying the advancement of science are not necessary to be a good person.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

evolution is not. Gravity is reproducible, evolution is not.

Understanding Evolution

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Science should not be used to attack religion because to do so would employ philosophy which is outside the realm of science.

Even if a religion makes an empirical claim?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by amsalpemkcus

Understanding Evolution

From your link;

If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!

This is fun. Below I'm giving you a link to Understanding gravity;

http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03018.html

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Even if a religion makes an empirical claim?

Such as?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by christ

Gravity is a myth - the earth sucks.

For myself, I accept that things evolve, but I consider that evolution (in its current form) is not a complete explanation of the observable universe and the history of its development. I would actively encourage discussion and theorising about what could fill the gaps in the theory that would make up a complete explanation, but I guess that makes me an idiot. An agnostic idiot, but still an idiot.

Blind faith in evolution, or idiocy? I guess I choose idiocy.

I am often irritated by people that discourage discussion of any topic that they believe they have all of the answers to, by throwing around insults like 'idiot' to describe those that refuse to accept the received wisdom, and are actively seeking answers - my guess is that Darwin would have felt the same as me, which is why he developed his theory, which back then was seen as 'idiocy' by the scientific community.

Are you referring to my post? Please note that I wasn't calling all people who disbelieve in evolution idiots, only the type who perpetuate the myths mentioned in this thread. If someone is ignorant enough to believe these myths then they are not "actively seeking answers" and they haven't bothered to do any research.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by christ

Gravity is a myth - the earth sucks.

For myself, I accept that things evolve, but I consider that evolution (in its current form) is not a complete explanation of the observable universe and the history of its development. I would actively encourage discussion and theorising about what could fill the gaps in the theory that would make up a complete explanation, but I guess that makes me an idiot.

An idiot for actively encouraging discussion and theorizing about these things? That's exactly what the tens of thousands of people working in the life and earth sciences (i.e., the "evolutionists") do every day. That's hardly idiotic. Suggesting that biological evolution is an obvious lie perpetrated by a conspiracy of atheist scientists - now THAT'S idiotic.

[amsalpemkcus]

What bothers me is that the idiots who perpetrate their ignorance (not knowing that almost 100 years of data, generated by thousands of scientists, supports the Darwin's theory of evolution) will gladly accept any medical treatments that may be developed in the future due to it. Hell even cancer cells within human body go crazy due to evolutionary principles. WTF is wrong with these otherwise sensible people who think they know better than all these really smart people who sweated their entire lives pursuing and verifying Darwin?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Gravity is reproducible, evolution is not.

Yes it is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... I'm just stating fact.

No you're not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Yes it is.

No it's not.

No you're not.

Yes I am.

[- - e r i k - -]

Creationists are gay. There I said it! Let the flamefest begin!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Creationists are gay. There I said it! Let the flamefest begin!

Some of them might be homosexual and then some of them might be extremely happy. I suspect these traits are not exclusive to Creationists.

Any Creationists have a problem with this?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Some of them might be homosexual and then some of them might be extremely happy.

Either you're homosexual OR happy?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by jckalen

to be fair, that's all humor started from another forum. But to be honest, some of it is really how some creationists think

How some. Not most.

Some here would like you to think this is the majority however. It is not.

Most Christians really care less about evolution or what have you.

It's really a small crumb in a big cookie.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Some of them might be homosexual and then some of them might be extremely happy. I suspect these traits are not exclusive to Creationists.

Any Creationists have a problem with this?

None at all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Either you're homosexual OR happy?

Yes gay means homosexual or happy.

So by saying they are gay, you are saying they are homosexual or they are happy.

Dig?

I guess a Gay Homosexual would be a happy homosexual.

[christ]

Gay-squared

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Creationists are gay. There I said it! Let the flamefest begin!

I think it is the other way around actually

[Chuckit]

Gays are creationists?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No it's not.

Evolution can be observed and reproduced using organisms as simple as bacteria and viruses, and as complex as human beings. The most obvious example of evolution is Avian Flue. The virus mutated, it's adapted to a human host. It's evolved to live in not just birds, but now humans.

The most stunning and example of evolution in humans specifically is the Delta 32 gene mutation. This mutation in the cell membrane prevents alien RNA from infecting the T cells. This mutation makes the person nearly immune to smallpox, bubonic plague, and HIV.

Humans did not always have this mutation, it only showed up in areas around middle and northern Europe. It is an anomaly and was more common after the 14th century after 75 million people died from bubonic plague; those who survived (carrying the Delta 32 mutation) bread and passed on this trait.

This is a perfect example of Natural Selection leading to Evolution in Humans. Or "macro evolution" as ID/Creationists like to call it. A sudden change in a species. Less than 1000 years is extremely sudden in our planet's time scale.

[Kevin]

I find it funny that the actual scientists that come up with this stuff has less faith than those who write in forums. Maybe less faith was a bad term.

Maybe them being more objective is a better one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Evolution can be observed and reproduced using organisms as simple as bacteria and viruses, and as complex as human beings. The most obvious example of evolution is Avian Flue. The virus mutated, it's adapted to a human host. It's evolved to live in not just birds, but now humans.

There are three known A subtypes of influenza viruses among humans. It is likely that some genetic parts of all current human influenza A viruses came from birds originally. What is it we're measuring and reproducing? Scientists do not presently know which specific mutations are needed to make the H5N1 (avian flu) virus easily and sustainably transmissible among humans. We're monitoring viral reproduction, we're not reproducing it and you'd be even more hard-pressed in saying we're measuring it. Why not use any virus as evidence of evolution, why avian flu? How to get avian flu; extensive exposure to fowl. That does not surprise me. There is no evidence, at present, from any outbreak site that the virus has increased its ability to spread from one person to another.

The most stunning and example of evolution in humans specifically is the Delta 32 gene mutation. This mutation in the cell membrane prevents alien RNA from infecting the T cells. This mutation makes the person nearly immune to smallpox, bubonic plague, and HIV.

Here you say; "This mutation makes the person nearly immune to smallpox, bubonic plague, and HIV"

Scientists say; "bubonic plague is a bacterial disease rather than a virus and is not blocked by the CCR5-delta 32 mutation."

"So, does CCR5-delta 32 protect people from the plague bacteria? Probably not. Mice infected with the plague bacteria died at around the same rates whether or not they had the CCR5-delta 32 mutation."


"delta 32 in its mutated form -- has no adverse effect on humans. In fact, possessing delta 32 could save your life."

""The results of the Eyam study suggest that delta 32 may have helped save Europe from the bubonic plague pandemic. It seems logical, then, that this could be confirmed by an experiment in which the plague bacterium is injected into the cells of someone possessing the delta 32 mutation. We have attempted to design experiments that allow us to expose the plague to the lymphocytes of different people, but so far we haven't been able to design that kind of experiment. To do that experiment, you would need to isolate that particular kind of cell. You would need to isolate the exact strain of the plague, and you would need to expose them together."

Here, we've reproduced nothing and we've measured nothing. In fact;

"It has been difficult to establish if the genotype ccr5/Delta-32 confers any degree of resistance to infection. The studies on this aspect are contradictory (Samson et al. 1996, Dean et al. 1996, Huang et al. 1996, Hoffman et al. 1997)."

and...

"From the literature one can conclude that Delta-32/Delta-32 genotype confers a high degree of protection to HIV infection, but it is not the main factor associated to resistance, since the majority of ESN lack this genetic factor. Different mechanisms such as other coreceptor mutations or immunological factors could account for the lack of infections in this high-risk group."

and...

"There have been human remains dug up from graves in Scandinavia -- bodies 3,000 and 4,000 years old -- in which they actually found the mutation, through DNA typing. So there are all kinds of pieces in this puzzle that are coming together."

Humans did not always have this mutation,

We don't know this. We certainly haven't measured it nor reproduced it with any degree of certainty as noted above.

it only showed up in areas around middle and northern Europe. It is an anomaly and was more common after the 14th century after 75 million people died from bubonic plague; those who survived (carrying the Delta 32 mutation) bread and passed on this trait.

One small problem here, Bubonic Plague again is a bacterial disease, not a viral disease. The CCR5-delta 32 mutation does not block bacterial disease and experiments have confirmed this.

This is a perfect example of Natural Selection leading to Evolution in Humans. Or "macro evolution" as ID/Creationists like to call it. A sudden change in a species. Less than 1000 years is extremely sudden in our planet's time scale.

A. I was given a link by someone else earlier that explained evolution. In that piece (link provided in that post) I saw a differentiation between micro and macro. I've also found and posted this from PubMed. This is not a term contrived by Creationists no matter how many times you would try to suggest it.

B. If your perfect example of Natural Selection leading to Evolution in Humans is a genetic mutation that was selected for by a plague it cannot resist and occurred thousands of years prior to HIV, in which it is not attributed as the primary factor to resistance, you are far more optimistic ( I dare say dogmatic) than I.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Either you're homosexual OR happy?

no.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Some of them might be homosexual AND THEN some of them might be extremely happy.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There are three known A subtypes of influenza viruses among humans. It is likely that some genetic parts of all current human influenza A viruses came from birds originally.

That's all I needed to hear.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Scientists say; "bubonic plague is a bacterial disease rather than a virus and is not blocked by the CCR5-delta 32 mutation."

It is bacterial, but it acts very much like a virus, very similar in manner in which AIDS works. Many kinds of bacteria inherit genes from their hosts. Plague (Yersinia pestis specifically) spreads directly into the lymphatic nodes. With the Delta 32 mutation, the bacteria can't inherit genes to "hide" in the lymphatic node and not be recognized as a foreign body by the T Cells; much in the same way HIV and Ebola do.

People can still die from it, especially if it spreads to the lungs.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"We have attempted to design experiments that allow us to expose the plague to the lymphocytes of different people, but so far we haven't been able to design that kind of experiment."

Bubonic plague is traditionally only found in animals. It only rarely transfers to humans, and that's usually through fleas. The problem with this experiment (and many experiments that rely on animal testing, but fail during human testing) is that a disease developed to kill animals versus humans may ultimately have a very different effect on animals even with the Delta 32 mutation.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

"From the literature one can conclude that Delta-32/Delta-32 genotype confers a high degree of protection to HIV infection, but it is not the main factor associated to resistance, since the majority of ESN lack this genetic factor. Different mechanisms such as other coreceptor mutations or immunological factors could account for the lack of infections in this high-risk group."

That only states that the Delta-32 may not be the only contributing immunological factor. A reasonable assumption.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"There have been human remains dug up from graves in Scandinavia -- bodies 3,000 and 4,000 years old -- in which they actually found the mutation, through DNA typing. So there are all kinds of pieces in this puzzle that are coming together."

That's news to me, sounds fascinating I'll have to read up on it. Regardless, it doesn't change my point. Whether the mutation is 5,000 years old or 10,000 years old, those who have it will live, those who don't, will die. It's still natural selection. Those who live will bread, and more people will have it and be protected. That's evolution.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

One small problem here, Bubonic Plague again is a bacterial disease, not a viral disease. The CCR5-delta 32 mutation does not block bacterial disease and experiments have confirmed this.

It is bacterial, but acts just like a virus. The Delta 32 mutation can block bacterial diseases if its survival relies on acquiring genetic information via the cell reciprocal.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

A. I was given a link by someone else earlier that explained evolution. In that piece (link provided in that post) I saw a differentiation between micro and macro. I've also found and posted this from PubMed. This is not a term contrived by Creationists no matter how many times you would try to suggest it.

Same words, different context; and yes, it is contrived by Creationsists. In that website (as simple as it is) the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is whether or not it's whithin the same species, or if the evolutionary chain encompasses multiple species linked to a parent species. It is not refering to large, sudden changes in a species versus only minute changes. It all happens on a cellular level, there's no such thing as "macro evolution" in the ID/Creationist sense of the term.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

B. If your perfect example of Natural Selection leading to Evolution in Humans is a genetic mutation that was selected for by a plague it cannot resist and occurred thousands of years prior to HIV, in which it is not attributed as the primary factor to resistance, you are far more optimistic ( I dare say dogmatic) than I.

Get off the bubonic plague for a second, here. Even if that website of yours claims that it doesn't protect against bubonic plague, it still helps protect against HIV, Ebola, small pox, Anthrax, and botulinum. The Delta 32 mutation will help keep some people alive. If there's a huge outbreak, a world-wide pandemic, people will live. Those who lived will pass their genese onto the next generation, and they will survive. It's evolution, plain and simple.

[ironknee]

ebuddy and friends will never have the ability to understand...let them continue to live in the dark ages

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee

ebuddy and friends will never have the ability to understand...let them continue to live in the dark ages

Understanding Evolution

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

That only states that the Delta-32 may not be the only contributing immunological factor. A reasonable assumption.

No, actually it states clearly that it is not the main factor associated to resistance.

That's news to me, sounds fascinating I'll have to read up on it. Regardless, it doesn't change my point. Whether the mutation is 5,000 years old or 10,000 years old, those who have it will live, those who don't, will die. It's still natural selection. Those who live will bread, and more people will have it and be protected. That's evolution.

What is it we're measuring and reproducing? My point was to indicate that you've heard something tempting, that bubonic plague selected for Delta 32. This is potentially incorrect. Studies suggest that small pox may have been sufficient, but that is still hotly debated. Bubonic Plague has remained the historical selective pressure of the resistance allele among most.

In summary, results from our age-structured model indicate that even the heavy mortality during the Black Death and Great Plague pandemics, combined with a series of intermittent epidemics, does not generate sufficient selective pressure to drive a resistance allele to 10% frequency. Instead, a disease with relatively high case fatality rates that persisted more continuously since the origin of the allele was likely to have been responsible responsible. Smallpox is such a disease. No single smallpox pandemic was as devastating as the Black Death, but the cumulative toll of human life caused by smallpox constituted an even stronger selection pressure than the episodic decimation of bubonic plague.

PNAS

i.e. this is all still quite arguable and foreign to us Ole Pigeon. I'll give you we're still trying to understand what may have been an evolution event, we're debating where and when natural selection occurs and we're still trying to find ways of measuring aspects of its various mechanisms. I simply take issue with the degree of optimism in your tone. I'm not denying natural selection or evolution.

It is bacterial, but acts just like a virus. The Delta 32 mutation can block bacterial diseases if its survival relies on acquiring genetic information via the cell reciprocal.

So... yes it can, but "it has been difficult to establish if the genotype ccr5/Delta-32 confers any degree of resistance to infection. The studies on this aspect are contradictory (Samson et al. 1996, Dean et al. 1996, Huang et al. 1996, Hoffman et al. 1997)" and no study has suggested that Delta 32 is the primary factor for resistance. You can tell me to let go of these issues, but if you insist on illustrating the measured and reproducible phenomena of natural selection using an example of a disease likely not attributed to providing the selective pressure necessary, you've measured and reproduced in fact nothing.

Get off the bubonic plague for a second, here. Even if that website of yours claims that it doesn't protect against bubonic plague, it still helps protect against HIV, Ebola, small pox, Anthrax, and botulinum.

It may help.

The Delta 32 mutation will help keep some people alive.

It may, but then other factors may be responsible. Compelling to be sure, but we just don't know with any measurable degree of certainty. I hope you're correct.

If there's a huge outbreak, a world-wide pandemic, people will live. Those who lived will pass their genese onto the next generation, and they will survive. It's evolution, plain and simple.

My primary point was, in your words; "the perfect example of Natural Selection leading to Evolution in Humans" was questionable at best being a genetic mutation that was selected for by a plague it cannot resist and occurred thousands of years prior to HIV, in which it is not attributed as the primary factor to resistance. I simply take issue with the degree of optimism in your tone. I'm not denying natural selection or evolution. I'm arguing whether or not evolution is measurable and reproducible. It can be both empirical and not entirely reproducible. Certainly not to the degree that gravity is if you'll recall the premise of the argument.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Less than 1000 years is extremely sudden in our planet's time scale.

But not if the earth is ~6000 years old

[Spliffdaddy]

oooo! *smackdown*

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Understanding Evolution

so what aboutthat site you don't agree with?