Being an atheist.

[Converse02]

Which part of my 'impedance of one disease state for another doesn't confer genetic transcendency' do you not understand?
it is great you won't die of malaria but you'll die of sickle cell... frankly we have treatment for malaria but a genetic disease yours to keep unto death... stop feigning knowledge!

You are surely not a doctor, are you?
Do you know the difference between sickle cell TRAIT vs sickle cell DISEASE?

The 2nd progeny is heterozygous, not homozygous. Because of this, he has no disease, merely sickle cell trait and can function as well as any normal person (there is no "impedance of one state for another"). Because of the mutation, he can survive in a malaria infested area. He does not have any disease, only trait. A person without the mutation, will die if infected. It is a beneficial mutation. The trait is beneficial, which is why the disease, in the homozygous state, will always be with us.

I am not your professor. Not to be harsh, but arguing evolution with you is pointless as you clearly do not understand the fundamentals.

Evolution is a fact, it has reached consensus in EVERY major university, EVERY major science organization, and EVERY major natural history museum on Earth. EVERY major branch in supports it (biology, geology, anthropology, genetics, you name it) Is it that lying atheists scientists (and many theists ones as well) from all corners of the global are just smarter than people like yourself and somehow able occupied all these prominent scientific positions? Or maybe it is the truth? Think about it.

 

[Converse02]

His work has many references.. all you need to do is read.. God forbid you might actually learn something that challenges your conventional 'wisdom'

ones understanding of science isn't flawed simply because they are a doctor of physics or a doctor of biology.. all the sciences are unified and incorporated.. no field in science is a monolith!

Did doesn't matter if he has thousands of references, it still needs to be peer-reviewed by experts to be published, and than peer-reviewed by other scientists after publication. Regardless, my expertise is not in statistics or informatics or whatever this professor wrote in.

Your understanding of science is flawed because a single scientist, especially one like myself who does not have expertise in statistics, cannot be expected to read every journal known to exist on anti-evolutionism in statistics and informatics. Neither do I have the credible expertise to critique his paper. I, at a certain level, depend on the unbiased experts and then on the general consensus. The general consensus is that the guy is a joker.
Evolution still reigns. Besides, we have the fossils. We win.

 

[Converse02]

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine View Post
Which part of my 'impedance of one disease state for another doesn't confer genetic transcendency' do you not understand?
it is great you won't die of malaria but you'll die of sickle cell... frankly we have treatment for malaria but a genetic disease yours to keep unto death... stop feigning knowledge!

You are surely not a doctor, are you?
Do you not know the difference between sickle cell TRAIT vs sickle cell DISEASE?

The 2nd progeny is heterozygous, not homozygous. Because of this, he has no disease, merely sickle cell trait and can function as well as any normal person (there is no "impedance of one state for another" as you say). Because of the mutation, he can survive in a malaria infested area. He does not have any disease, only trait. A person without the mutation, will die if infected. It is a beneficial mutation. The trait is beneficial, which is why the disease, in the homozygous state, will always be with us.

I am not your professor. Not to be harsh, but arguing evolution with you is pointless as you clearly do not understand the fundamentals.

Evolution is a fact, it has reached consensus in EVERY major university, EVERY major science organization, and EVERY major natural history museum on Earth. EVERY major branch in supports it (biology, geology, anthropology, genetics, you name it) Is it that lying atheists scientists (and many theists ones as well) from all corners of the global are just smarter than people like yourself and somehow able occupied all these prominent scientific positions? Or maybe it is the truth? Think about it.

 

[جوري]

You are surely not a doctor, are you?
Do you know the difference between sickle cell TRAIT vs sickle cell DISEASE?

The 2nd progeny is heterozygous, not homozygous. Because of this, he has no disease, merely sickle cell trait and can function as well as any normal person (there is no "impedance of one state for another"). Because of the mutation, he can survive in a malaria infested area. He does not have any disease, only trait. A person without the mutation, will die if infected. It is a beneficial mutation. The trait is beneficial, which is why the disease, in the homozygous state, will always be with us.

People with sickle cell trait don't present with disease? that is certainly news to me
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=19703

Massive Gross Hematuria in a Sickle Cell Trait Patient with Renal Papillary Necrosis

Renal Medullary Carcinoma in an Adolescent With Sickle Cell Trait
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/2/e22

further Malaria can't survive in either whether carrier of the trait or manifesting the actual disease.. so again what is your point?

I am not your professor. Not to be harsh, but arguing evolution with you is pointless as you clearly do not understand the fundamentals.

here we agree indeed... I like the prof portion.. you are more of a board jester?

Evolution is a fact, it has reached consensus in EVERY major university, EVERY major science organization, and EVERY major natural history museum on Earth. EVERY major branch in supports it (biology, geology, anthropology, genetics, you name it) Is it that lying atheists scientists (and many theists ones as well) from all corners of the global are just smarter than people like yourself and somehow able occupied all these prominent scientific positions? Or maybe it is the truth? Think about it.

You keep saying it is a fact over and over.. why not put your money where your mouth is? you have an ape, you have labs, you know how to use vectors ergo liposomes or e-coli, how about we see some amazing transofmration in lieu of drivel?
I don't write to get acknowledgement least of which from your ilk.. you as if an authority figure a gamut of vacuous non subject related comments won't really daunt me into joining your league either..
Being a true scientist above all confers some humility on oneself and an open mind that is ready for challenges..

you keep your convictions like a religious zealot who spews ineffectual rhetoric.. see how that fares!

 

[جوري]

Did doesn't matter if he has thousands of references, it still needs to be peer-reviewed by experts to be published, and than peer-reviewed by other scientists after publication. Regardless, my expertise is not in statistics or informatics or whatever this professor wrote in.

Your understanding of science is flawed because a single scientist, especially one like myself who does not have expertise in statistics, cannot be expected to read every journal known to exist on anti-evolutionism in statistics and informatics. Neither do I have the credible expertise to critique his paper. I, at a certain level, depend on the unbiased experts and then on the general consensus. The general consensus is that the guy is a joker.
Evolution still reigns. Besides, we have the fossils. We win.

a few threads ago, you wanted just 'one' article, I have provided you with one of many actually, which you are inept at best at critiquing using the scientific method... at this stage you can take your self-aggrandizing and use it on someone who might be impressed with it..

cheers

 

[Converse02]

People with sickle cell trait don't present with disease? that is certainly news to me
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=19703
Massive Gross Hematuria in a Sickle Cell Trait Patient with Renal Papillary Necrosis
Renal Medullary Carcinoma in an Adolescent With Sickle Cell Trait
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/2/e22

Whoa, you found TWO case studies in which a person with sickle cell trait happened to have renal papillary necrosis and renal medullary carcinoma.
Geez, I guess those TWO cases are enough to get the whole gene selected out (despite it's benefits against malaria) and disprove evolution!!! Are you for real?

You keep saying it is a fact over and over..

I will, as you can't prove me wrong. Evolution has ruled for 150 years. It rules all the major science universities, all the major organizations on Earth. You ask for evidence, it has fossils, molecular clocks, radiometrics. Why is it, after 150 years, you kind lack the ability to push your type of anti-evolutionist ideas into the forefront of science, even when you think it is true?
Evolution is part of science. It is a theory (do you know what THAT means?) AND A FACT, like atomic theory, the theory of gravity, theory of friction, germ theory and so on.
What do you have?

you have an ape, you have labs, you know how to use vectors ergo liposomes or e-coli, how about we see some amazing transofmration in lieu of drivel?

Again, go back to school, ask you professors why this experiment using an ape is a dumb way to prove evolution. Maybe stop by the professor teaching paleontology and realize you don't need to use an ape and just look at the fossil record. BTW, in case you didn't know, evolution has been proven with e coli (or what you guys try to split as "microevolution.")

Being a true scientist above all confers some humility on oneself and an open mind that is ready for challenges..

Scientists know exactly what will disprove evolution. It has never been found. Evolution is reinforced by biology, geology, anthropology, the study of radiometrics, all the disciplines of science, yet you hopelessly attempt to use science against evolution. Science supports evolution, always has for past 150 years.

 

[Converse02]

a few threads ago, you wanted just 'one' article, I have provided you with one of many actually, which you are inept at best at critiquing using the scientific method... at this stage you can take your self-aggrandizing and use it on someone who might be impressed with it..

cheers

LOL. Fine, you are correct and evolution is false. This paper and surely many others disprove evolution. Us lying atheists (and a few theists) just happen to be smarter and able to rule all the scientific universities, journals, organizations, and science disciplines. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and hominids, all forgeries. We purposely ignore these papers that are coming in by the boat-loads (from great theistic and prominent scientists like Dermott J. Mullan), you guys are just inepts at pushing your ideas to the forefront of science. The real answer is "Goddidit." Teach the controversy!

Come back when you actually learn what evolution is.

 

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

LOL. Fine, you are correct and evolution is false. This paper and surely many others disprove evolution. Us lying atheists (and a few theists) just happen to be smarter and able to rule all the scientific universities, journals, organizations, and science disciplines. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and hominids, all forgeries. We purposely ignore these papers that are coming in by the boat-loads (from great theistic and prominent scientists like Dermott J. Mullan), you guys are just inepts at pushing your ideas to the forefront of science. The real answer is "Goddidit." Teach the controversy!

Come back when you actually learn what evolution is.

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

 

[جوري]

Whoa, you found TWO case studies in which a person with sickle cell trait happened to have renal papillary necrosis and renal medullary carcinoma.
Geez, I guess those TWO cases are enough to get the whole gene selected out (despite it's benefits against malaria) and disprove evolution!!! Are you for real?

It isn't two cases at all, how many times must I publicly embarrass you, for you to have some sense knocked into you? You are hilarious.. here is an article about diseases that can arise in sickle cell trait,
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/sickle_trait.html

which include Life-threatening complications of exercise, splenic infarction, hematuria, UTI, Polycystic kidney dz. renal medullar ca. pulmonary embolism, proliferative retinopathy etc etc..
why don't you highlight to me how substituting one disease state for another proves evolution?

I will, as you can't prove me wrong. Evolution has ruled for 150 years. It rules all the major science universities, all the major organizations on Earth. You ask for evidence, it has fossils, molecular clocks, radiometrics. Why is it, after 150 years, you kind lack the ability to push your type of anti-evolutionist ideas into the forefront of science, even when you think it is true?

You keep repeating yourself, but that doesn't assert your point considering, some very basic science eludes you, and a the conundrum is you are not even abashed by your ignorance rather enjoy putting yourself out there for ridicule with every post!

Evolution is part of science. It is a theory (do you know what THAT means?) AND A FACT, like atomic theory, the theory of gravity, theory of friction, germ theory and so on.
What do you have?

Theory: is a proposal intended to explain certain observations.. some have more weight than others.. I can drop a pen and demonstrate gravitational theories... I can't look at fossil and say that is your great uncle.. we share 50% of our genes with bananas, it doesn't make you a fruit either, although in your case it is possible
Fact: A concept whose truth can be proved

got it?

Again, go back to school, ask you professors why this experiment using an ape is a dumb way to prove evolution. Maybe stop by the professor teaching paleontology and realize you don't need to use an ape and just look at the fossil record. BTW, in case you didn't know, evolution has been proven with e coli (or what you guys try to split as "microevolution.")

adaptation and evolution are two branches..
squam cell becoming columnar with repeated insult as a way of adaptation is different than ape being human...
I don't think having abstract thinking is dumb.. I think being unable to abjure ones beliefs based solely on logical fallacies however is!

Scientists know exactly what will disprove evolution. It has never been found. Evolution is reinforced by biology, geology, anthropology, the study of radiometrics, all the disciplines of science, yet you hopelessly attempt to use science against evolution. Science supports evolution, always has for past 150 years.

You keep saying that religiously on every thread.. repeating yourself ad nauseam veritably cements the integrity of your argument!

 

[جوري]

LOL. Fine, you are correct and evolution is false. This paper and surely many others disprove evolution. Us lying atheists (and a few theists) just happen to be smarter and able to rule all the scientific universities, journals, organizations, and science disciplines. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and hominids, all forgeries. We purposely ignore these papers that are coming in by the boat-loads (from great theistic and prominent scientists like Dermott J. Mullan), you guys are just inepts at pushing your ideas to the forefront of science. The real answer is "Goddidit." Teach the controversy!

Come back when you actually learn what evolution is.

selective Observation, prestigious Jargon (I am being generous-of course) and causal reductionism ... if I haven't on every thread produced points which were circumvented at best..ignored when I produced argument to the contrary, including on his very own 'lamackian evolution', whilst confusing correlation and causation with a very ailing example of how mutations confer superior genetics ..
selective Reading, adhoms, and lastly reductio ad absurdum.. How can I compete with that?..
the gent is oozing laurelses.. well because he said so just a few posts ago..

I mean how can we compete with his biochem and his 'MD', when things that are so elemental to any first year med student, like hypoxia, acidosis, dehydration etc causing a transformation in the silent sickle cell trait into a syndrome resembling sickle cell disease are as absurd (or afflicting ONLY TWO) as posing legtimate questions asking him to conciliate basic disorders that defy the very concept of natural selection or naming mutations that have caused speciation.. No, it is enough that this pundit appeals to authority to corroborate his points. while mocking the research of others, I mean it is too beneath him... I mean what more could we ask for?

Indeed.. we should go away and come back when we can match you in wit and accomplishment-- hats off to you!

 

[Azy]

I don't want to start another argument but it does seem like you're being purposefully evasive because it's clear what his point is.

The first line of the page you posted states :
"Sickle cell trait usually is not regarded as a disease state because it has complications that are either uncommon or mild. Nevertheless, under unusual circumstances serious morbidity or mortality can result".

If it provided benefit in 99% of cases and was detrimental in 1% it's obvious that it would persist.

Evoltuion is not demonstrable!

I'm afraid it is. The fossil record shows that life has gradually changed since the Earth came to be. This is enough to prove Evolution has happened, though what I think you're arguing against is how it happened. You can poke holes in any and all proposals for the genetic basis of it if you see fit, but that doesn't make a single bit of difference.

Whether it was God changing things a bit at a time or it was by natural selection or another mechanism doesn't change the fact that it has happened.

(this is a bit off topic by the way, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean holding evolution as truth)

 

[Converse02]

how many times must I publicly embarrass you, for you to have some sense knocked into you? You are hilarious

It's my third day here. Please reread my first post http://www.islamicboard.com/989599-post143.html

I greeted Muslims and merely explained why I, as an atheist, do not think life is all chance. I think that's pretty reasonable. What do I get?
Having a Muslim's very first question directed to me being "how does 'natural selection' reconcile trinucleotide repeat expansions?" What the?!

Skye, see your own quote above. Publicly embarrass me? Knock some sense into me? Getting laugh at?

My old responses were offensive, which is inexcusable. For that, I apologize. But you have in many ways provoked me into hurling insults and hurt feeling back.

Why?

You're a veteran poster, at 6000+ posts, with a positive rep. Is this what I am to expect from Muslims?

 

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

You're a veteran poster, at 6000+ posts, with a positive rep. Is this what I am to expect from Muslims?

This tends to a logical fallacy. )

 

[Converse02]

This tends to a logical fallacy. )

You got me there. Probably "hasty generalization." LOL.

 

[جوري]

I don't want to start another argument but it does seem like you're being purposefully evasive because it's clear what his point is.

The first line of the page you posted states :
"Sickle cell trait usually is not regarded as a disease state because it has complications that are either uncommon or mild. Nevertheless, under unusual circumstances serious morbidity or mortality can result".

Indeed, and Malaria is a dz state --schizont infected Rbcs which like afore mentioned causes -- such as hypoxia, acidosis, high altitude etc cause the RBC's to go into a state similar to that of fulminant sickle cell.. i.e disabling the schizonts from surviving.. thus substituting one disease state for another doesn't confer immunity or superior genetics.. else we'd all be lining up at pfizer asking for vectors to transoform our normal hemoglobin to the carrier trait in case we deisre a leave of absence to the serengeti!
It is serendipitous that folks already in an ailing state not succumb to a superimposed infection..

If it provided benefit in 99% of cases and was detrimental in 1% it's obvious that it would persist.

see above reply and try to browse some credible journals before you hurl a reply!

I'm afraid it is. The fossil record shows that life has gradually changed since the Earth came to be. This is enough to prove Evolution has happened, though what I think you're arguing against is how it happened. You can poke holes in any and all proposals for the genetic basis of it if you see fit, but that doesn't make a single bit of difference.

Don't be so afraid.. you are after all as smart as you are educated!

Whether it was God changing things a bit at a time or it was by natural selection or another mechanism doesn't change the fact that it has happened.

That is a general statement and isn't focused on anything in specific...

(this is a bit off topic by the way, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean holding evolution as truth)

OK

 

[جوري]

It's my third day here. Please reread my first post http://www.islamicboard.com/989599-post143.html

I greeted Muslims and merely explained why I, as an atheist, do not think life is all chance. I think that's pretty reasonable. What do I get?
Having a Muslim's very first question directed to me being "how does 'natural selection' reconcile trinucleotide repeat expansions?" What the?!

Skye, see your own quote above. Publicly embarrass me? Knock some sense into me? Getting laugh at?

My old responses were offensive, which is inexcusable. For that, I apologize. But you have in many ways provoked me into hurling insults and hurt feeling back.

Why? ..

You're a veteran poster, at 6000+ posts, with a positive rep. Is this what I am to expect from Muslims?

I am not sure what your expectations are from Muslims?.. but if you write with vehemence be prepared to back it up with something other than a logical fallacy--millions of books written by millions of people on a particular subject doesn't confer absolution

millions of books written by Doctors and Scholars in the field of religion in Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc doesn't inevitably proove to you that God exists, because at the very crux of the argument is something visceral.
You can write a million article involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; but it isn't supported by fact..

You are filling in the blanks based on a premise that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion or several conclusions can be drawn..

If you can accept that much, then I reckon your stay at any forum, will be alot more pleasing, and would foster better understanding for you than it has been for you for the last three days!

cheers

 

[Converse02]

I am not sure what your expectations are from Muslims?.. but if you write with vehemence be prepared to back it up with something other than a logical fallacy

I humbly do not see myself as the first to write with vehemence. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Regardless, asking a new person about trinucleotide repeats, a person whom you have never met, is rather odd. If you have questions about it, I kindly suggest you ask a knowledgeable professor who you trust or read on it. They will probably answer better than me and you can't accused them on googling it 20 mins ago, like you did me. I answered TNRs question regardless.

millions of books written by millions of people on a particular subject doesn't confer absolution

You are quite correct. The scientists have more than words, they have empirical evidence in the form of fossils in strata of rock, radiometric evidence, molecular clocks, agricultural studies, microbiological studies, recorded genetic changes in animals over several generation...need I go on?

millions of books written by Doctors and Scholars in the field of religion in Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc doesn't inevitably proove to you that God exists, because at the very crux of the argument is something visceral.

What evidence to you have it is visceral? Judism, Islam, Christianity are not sciences, they are religions. There is no empirical evidence for them that I am aware of. There is empirical evidence for evolution.

Lastly, I have read your article
Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth
Dermott J. Mullan, [email protected]

The article concerns abiogenesis, not evolution. It therefore does not disprove Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Care to try again?

 

[جوري]

I humbly do not see myself as the first to write with vehemence. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Regardless, asking a new person about trinucleotide repeats, a person whom you have never met, is rather odd. If you have questions about it, I kindly suggest you ask a knowledgeable professor who you trust or read on it. They will probably answer better than me and you can't accused them on googling it 20 mins ago, like you did me. I answered TNRs question regardless.

You answered incorrectly, and I am not looking for a credible reply from you.. it is what we call a rhetorical q... why is it so unusual to ask you a q based on beliefs that you have shared? are your beliefs above scrutiny?

You are quite correct. The scientists have more than words, they have empirical evidence in the form of fossils in strata of rock, radiometric evidence, molecular clocks, agricultural studies, microbiological studies, recorded genetic changes in animals over several generation...need I go on?

empirical evidence is derived from experiment and observation rather than theory and that is the actual definition.. if it were empirical it would be astonishingly reproducible it is that simple.. throwing random terms out doesn't sweeten the deal I assure you..

What evidence to you have it is visceral? Judism, Islam, Christianity are not sciences, they are religions. There is no empirical evidence for them that I am aware of. There is empirical evidence for evolution.

What is your understanding of the term visceral?

Lastly, I have read your article
Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth
Dermott J. Mullan, [email protected]

The article concerns abiogenesis, not evolution. It therefore does not disprove Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Care to try again?

You haven't read or skimmed it at best.. but maybe visited Dawkin to see what he thought of it, as I have read this testimony before from another atheist.. in fact it does deal with the probability of speciation using what we know of evolution, using mathematical equations for each variable, i.e life on earth, which was given quite an exponential increase to accomadate all possibilities, the time when out sun made life favorable, another variable for first ascertained fossils, plus using the smallest components possible less than that of known viruses and anyone with basic level understanding of visuses will tell you, that they are not considered living organisms rather need a surrogate to foster their function, be that as it may to allow for that positive change over the centuries .. and by positive I mean every few centuries or so a new specie evolves to acquiesce to its environment...

would I like to try again? I don't know, I do bore quickly when people don't meet me on a level!

cheers

 

[Trumble]

I don't know, I do bore quickly when people don't meet me on a level!

Were you born that arrogant, or did you actually have to study somewhere? :rollseyes

 

[جوري]

Were you born that arrogant, or did you actually have to study somewhere? :rollseyes

That is news to me--all those who know me 'in the real world' consider me humble, dependable, honest, compassionate and a dear friend.. 70% of my friends are non-Muslim!..

perhaps this is just your own perspective?.. which of course you are entitled to!

cheers