Sci/Tech Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

[Dyslexia://]

Reminds me a lot of this.

 

[ReVolver]

I believe a "god" created existance, but I'm not saying it's a Christian God, hate all you want

 

[ElderKingpin]

I believe a "god" created existance, but I'm not saying it's a Christian God, hate all you want

hey, better then evolution right?

---

Evolution perplexes me, it seems to have too many holes to be a plausible story, what kind of drugs was Darwin taking when he decided to give this to the public?

 

[perkeyone]

believing in god doesnt necessarily clash with believing in evolution.
from what i understand, most scientist believe in evolution and god.

if im not mistaken, the main thing that clashes with evolution is creationism.

 

[Durandal]

The only real part that clashes with creationism, is the belief that we evolved from lesser lifeforms, I do believe in evolution, however I find the belief that we evolved from some blob of bacteria insulting.

 

[sqrage]

The only real part that clashes with creationism, is the belief that we evolved from lesser lifeforms, I do believe in evolution, however I find the belief that we evolved from some blob of bacteria insulting.

its a good thing science discards emotion and attempts to be unbiased.

 

[SerraAvenger]

believing in god doesnt necessarily clash with believing in evolution.
from what i understand, most scientist believe in evolution and god.

if im not mistaken, the main thing that clashes with evolution is creationism.

No, creationism is how it was created, evolution is how it evolved. But most creationists tend to say that we were released to the world the way we are now, which I find barely supportable.
I do believe in both god and evolution, I just cannot apply evolution to any form of greater mutation. Yeah, selecting genes like genes that render immunity to diseases (just for the records: AIDS is not a disease, it's a fucking syndrom) or decrease the effect of environmental toxics like radiation - I believe in that, it makes perfect sense. But the growth of organs - what the heck? It's just too mutch randomness and luck in there.
Yeah, some people combine the two and say that there is some sort of "choosing factor" that determines which genes evolve, some might call it some sort of "intelligent designer" or anything, others god, but yeah I don't really know. How could I?

EDIT:
While we are at AIDS and HIV:
http://www.thehelper.net/forums/showthread.php?t=146088
Man, really...
Corelation does not imply causation. Yes, the ccr5 mutation is the reason no HIV-antibodies are found in his body anymore. No, we still can't tell its the reason he doesn't show AIDS. Oh wait, I forgot - they redifined the AIDS thingie so that it is only AIDS if there's HIV-antibodies. So if there is no HIV-Antibodies, but he still dies of the very same symptoms, it's not AIDS.

 

[Sevion]

Maybe it's instead AIDS v1.0? And the new definition of AIDS is AIDS v2.0?!? :O Trying to lighten the mood : (

 

[ElderKingpin]

believing in god doesnt necessarily clash with believing in evolution.
from what i understand, most scientist believe in evolution and god.

if im not mistaken, the main thing that clashes with evolution is creationism.

They call that

Theistic Evolution, i learned about it in school, but not too deep.

It is basically, God created animals, then, He used evolution to evolve those animals, which is even more whacked then i could imagine.

 

[perkeyone]

No, creationism is how it was created, evolution is how it evolved. But most creationists tend to say that we were released to the world the way we are now

thats what i was referring to...
thats why i said a conflict exists between creationists and evolutionists.
i think maybe you misunderstood what i said, or maybe i am misunderstanding you.
here... this is from wiki, first line says

Creationism is the belief[1] that considers humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe as the creation of a supernatural agency. Creationists believe that the theory of evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth—the creation-evolution controversy.[2]

AIDS is not a disease, it's a fucking syndrom

from wiki again first line says

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

what difference does it make if you call it a syndrome or a disease?
am i missing something?
i looked it up, and found this.

A disease is a health condition with a clearly identifiable cause, while a syndrome is a set of symptoms or conditions that occur together and suggest the presence of a certain disease or an increased chance of developing the disease.

One could argue that HIV is a clearly identifiable cause for AIDS.
But it doesnt bother me much if its called a syndrome or a disease.

While we are at AIDS and HIV:
http://www.thehelper.net/forums/showthread.php?t=146088
Man, really...
Corelation does not imply causation. Yes, the ccr5 mutation is the reason no HIV-antibodies are found in his body anymore. No, we still can't tell its the reason he doesn't show AIDS.

the article never said it cured his aids, it just said there was no detectable hiv.
technically i think he would still be classified as having aids under the current system.

Oh wait, I forgot - they redifined the AIDS thingie so that it is only AIDS if there's HIV-antibodies. So if there is no HIV-Antibodies, but he still dies of the very same symptoms, it's not AIDS.

as far as i know,
once your white blood cell count gets below a certain number you are classified as having AIDS, and even if your white blood cell count recovers to normal levels, you still are considered to have aids.
im not sure what all the other stuff about dying but not from aids is about.
one could argue that aids doesnt kill you, it just makes it easier for other stuff to kill you.

 

[SerraAvenger]

here... this is from wiki, first line says

Well I'm not sure what to say since the wiki article only states "cannot adequately". I was sure that creationism was only about how the world was created, while evolutionism is how the life forms of today evolved since then. Probably I was wrong.

it doesnt bother me much if its called a syndrome or a disease.

If you don't know the cause, it's no disease. IIRC, AIDS was identified by a number of diseases (which were only able to develop in a weak immune system). Then the HIV->AIDS supporters discovered that not everybody who showed those diseases was tested positive on HIV, so they redefined the AIDS syndrome.

the article never said it cured his aids, it just said there was no detectable hiv.

Last time I checked, HIV couldn't be detected, it is mutating far to fast. What they were testing for were HIV-antibodies. And given the definition (ICD-10 and CDC, if not more) of AIDS (only AIDS if there is HIV-antibodies), it clearly does imply that he is no longer suffering from 'AIDS'. He might still die due to the immunodeficiency, but at least he was no AIDS-patient anymore!

technically i think he would still be classified as having aids under the current system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS#CDC_classification_system

The older definition is to referring to AIDS using the diseases that were associated with it[...]
In 1993, the CDC expanded their definition of AIDS to include all HIV positive people [...]

Since he is no longer HIV-positive...

im not sure what all the other stuff about dying but not from aids is about.
one could argue that aids doesnt kill you, it just makes it easier for other stuff to kill you.

You see, AIDS is not destroying your immunesystem. AIDS is just stating that your immune system is destroyed. AIDS is like a price tag: It doesn't define the price, it just names the price. Hence, of course, you can't die from AIDS. But that's not what I was talking about. What I wanted to say is that some people show all the symptoms of AIDS, but they aren't classified as AIDS patients because they haven't been tested HIV positive.
Now if these people die of another disease, I tend to say that they died from AIDS (although technically they didn't). Again, AIDS is no disease, it's just a disease tag.

 

[perkeyone]

wow thats weird...

my older sister took a course on human sexuality and two hiv positive speakers came in and talked to them about their lives.

most of what i said about aids classification came second hand from the stories my sister told me.

but according to her, one of the speakers is hiv positive but doesnt have aids, while the other is hiv positive and does have aids.
the explanation my sister gave me was that, one of them got treated early on, so their white blood cell count didnt drop too low while the other's white blood cell count did get low, and even though their white blood cell count recovered, they are still classified as having aids.

this is from that same article you quoted

The AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured.

 

[SerraAvenger]

but according to her, one of the speakers is hiv positive but doesnt have aids, while the other is hiv positive and does have aids.
the explanation my sister gave me was that, one of them got treated early on, so their white blood cell count didnt drop too low while the other's white blood cell count did get low, and even though their white blood cell count recovered, they are still classified as having aids.

This is true. None of this actually conflicts with what I said = )

The thing is just that all the sources you are quoting all go for the number of T-cells in the blood, while I'm actually thinking about the HIV. I cannot tell for sure, but I think you are no longer classified as having AIDS when you don't show HIV-antibodies anymore.
Again, it has been a long time since I actually took interest in the matter, so what I'm writing might just as well be nonsense.

I'll go to bed now so sleep tight.

 

[perkeyone]

yeah thats why i thought it was so weird.
its so easy to misinterpret people on the internet.

at this point ive pretty much lost all interest in learning about how aids is classified rofl which was pretty far off the original topic.

 

[The Helper]

Hall of Fame because why not?