It has been a while sense I have done battle on this front, much of my lag of response is finding time to review material to make sure I understand and clearly represent the ACTUAL science.

Creationist websites have gotten good at confusing the subject. In fact when you google some things such as ERV, and evolution you tend to find more creationists sites than real science.

Massage, I wanted to thank you for your approach. I am not certain of howzityoume level of honesty, but I agree he should be given the benefit of the doubt . . . up to a point.

If he really is interested in this subject, he should fully read, and in fact reread the presented evidence.

In my search for truth on this regard, that lead me from IDiot to science advocate was a long one, and I spent many evenings reading and rereading the evidence and the history of how we have developed the theory of evolution.

I kind of expect anyone with an honest intellect, and desire to understand to the same thing. If you cant spend hours regurgitating the claims from creationists site you can do the same by starting at the beginning of the historical perspective of evolution and then working toward the details of genetics.

Good. Technology often keeps people in check.

I have found even just staring at people helps. When people are being watched they are far more likely to do the right thing.

I have absolutely no problem with this, in fact I would rather something like this than a blanket increase in costs to all pet owners for the violation of the few.

The KKK is not a protected group . . .

As individual US citizens they can go out and pick up trash all they want without any governing body recognizing there group and sponsoring it.

This is a publicity play, nothing more, and denying them is not discriminating against a protected group.

Discrimination is what we do every single day to determine one thing from another. The bad form of discrimination is when it is based on irrational things such as race, religion, creed, gender, ect.

Well said, and while I am anti-religious I agree that Islam is more than just jihad, however the KKK is not more than racism.

When an organism sponsors hate as there main theme, and genocide as the solution, they have no place being sponsored by our government.

Honestly religions like Islam, and Christianity are really all over the place thematically. You cannot really judge one group of them by the standards of another. The only reason to call yourselves the KKK is to gain racists members and spread hate.

. . . and here I thought we where making progress.

. .yea you didn't fully read the article. Any gene can be mutated, the more genes, coding or non coding that an organism has allows for the greater number of mutation events. Mutations can activate, or inactivate any gene. Dependent on the environment a very old gene that was once inactive could offer a benefit and get selected positively.

Complete nonsense.

More nonsense. An ERV is a specific bit of genetic code inserted by a specific virus on a specific time in history. Which explains why we do not see the same exact bit of code at the same place, with the same inactivation mutation across different species . . . unless they share common ancetry.

What you have said above, DOES NOT EXPLAIN the ERV we share in common. Random events have probabilities associated with them, what is the probability that we share the same ERV in the same location, and have the EXACT same inactivation mutation? Earlier in the thread you spoke about the incredible odds against a beneficial mutation, inactivation of a viral gene is beneficial, what are the chances of this happening in two separate species at the same time, same place in the sequence, and the same EXACT mutation?

Astronomical.

Couple this with the fused chromosome2, and it IS irrefutable evidence of common decent.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Yea see my previous post, I realized my mistakes.

Good points and ones that I see all the time.

I do think that many new technologies are used as a way to manipulate the end user vs really serve them.

However I think that in many cases an evolution of the market place will always spawn many new techs, some used practically, some used in a more exploitative way.

Over time people will flush out what works for them, and some techs will go the way of the dodo.

Oh how I wish the discount cards and coupon crap would die, but sadly I think it hooks into an obsessive trait of human psychology, and may not go anywhere so long as it pushes that pleasure center button that is feeling validated for "saving" resources.

Genome sizes DO vary in closely related sub populations.


http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/162.full
Howzityoume, I want to apologize, I reread through your originally posts, and I did not find goal posts shifting, so please excuse my last post. I see we have had some trouble in understanding some of the term usages, and I see that your skepticism is valid if even grounded in irrationality (ie, that creation makes sense where evolution does not)

I think the last linked article if read closely will show how we are researching and attempting to understand how genome size correlates to the overall picture of evolution. Between this article and the previous one you should see that the undertaking is a serious one. What I want you to further consider is that no working explanations can be had in comparing magic (creation) to natural processes. So while you may remain skeptical that we fully understand how speciation and divergence occur at the genetic level (and rightly so), I think it only honest to admit no better theory has ever been presented. It is at this level that proper skeptical acceptance should exist. I do not BELIEVE in evolution, I accept it as the best explanation of the evidence with no contradictions to date.

Evolution answers questions, such as why we share an ERV with some primates, and not others. So many facets of evolution answer questions that no other theory has been able to answer. That in and of itself is what supports evolution and makes any other theory seem hollow for lack of the same ability to make predictions.

I did find many in accuracies in your original posts, but they are the same ones you continue to make, and that is the source of my own personal irritation.



This is just not true. I hope that some of the research I have linked will be convincing to you in that regard. We have empirical support for evolution, including changes in the size of the genome.

This is also just amazingly wrong. Comparing the set of evidence for evolution against the set of evidence for a creator is not even in the same realm of realism. The only way one comes to this conclusion is when the creator is the default, and all other evidence must be compared with a certain outcome pre-established. Science and proper skepticism do not work this way.

I studied as a physicist in college, and I do not believe matter came from nowhere. However where matter came from is unimportant to an evolutionary biologist, so this is a straw man.

DNA's origin is a tricky thing to determine, RNA on the other hand can be shown to form via nothing more than convection currents and naturally occurring organic compounds. This has been done in the lab many times. I posted a link to a video earlier in the thread that presented one of the more widely accepted hypothesis for abiogenesis. However, this again is a straw man. Evolutionary biologists do not need to know the source of the coding system to detail how it changes. Which is what evolution is all about.

On your third point I have submitted two very good links that show genone size does increase, we can map the mechanism by which this occurs, and can use statistical modeling to show how over time you can go from a small genome to a very large one, and how natural selection can pair them down, or allow them to grow dependent on the environment.




Again please see the cited links, or even do as I did and google search genome size, lots of material exists on this topic as it is one of the leading aspects of evolutionary research at the moment.



1, 2 are correct, 3 is not please see the fruit fly studies. If only we could study every human currently alive and sequences every single person's genome independently at birth . . . man we would have an awesome array of data then. Sadly, we cannot, and have not been able to do this, and thus the data is lacking . . . not the theory.

Evolutionary theory has come a long way in a short time, but the reality is that the tools needed to really delve into the genetic components of evolution are in there infancy. If we look at it from the scale of evolution itself, the time period of our growth of understanding is not even a blip on the radar. Evolution occurs on geological time scales, and we have not even been looking for the tiniest of fractions along that scale from the genetic perspective. Genetics is the most complex aspect, and the one that has the least data.

In light of that, it is quite amazing how much we have learned in so short a time.

Sadly the stigma associated with smoking pot has caused a backlash which has retarded the scientific growth of understanding regarding these compounds. Couple that with the illegal nature, and difficult red tape researchers have place in front of them to work legally with the substance, and you can see how we are early in our understandings of canabinoids in general and specifically as treatments for various diseases.

Until Large RCT's are conducted, with double blinding, and good controls in place we will not know how effective a treatment the various hypothesis will be.

This is true of all science.

I have asked for this many times. Please tell me what in these treatments is active, and what mechanisms are involved.

Watching 90 minutes of vague claims is not productive, a quick summation of the interactions of the treatment which are active should be easy.

This is where the rubber meets the road, and one of the biggest clues that a given treatment is bogus is when people who support it cannot tell you how it works.

Your right, how could anyone make us repeat ourselves over the course of several pages and still not get what this means?

Coding or non coding, its a gene addition, beneficial or non beneficial its a gene addition. A copy or not a copy is a gene addition.

Got it?

Many circumstances under which genes will be added, and they may or may not have an impact based on selection pressures. Even changes in genes are really new genes. Even though you end up with the same number of total genes. If I change my socks, just becuase I still only have one pair of socks, I have new socks. ie new genes. Both the total number and the uniqueness of genes changes, this has been shown definitively.

Get it?

We got it pages ago, in fact this was well known to me years ago. Massagetrade, I hope you look back a few pages and reread some of his posts. He is being weaselly in the extreme.

At first he said gene additions do not happen.
Then he said beneficial gene additions do not happen.
Then he said they happen, but not very often.

The goal posts have moved several times in this thread and each time evidence is presented to disprove a vague assertion it is then moved slightly.

What you mean is you are finding it harder and harder to find something to disagree with.

This wouldn't be a problem if you didn't move the goal posts and instead took some time to really read without bias what modern evolutionary biology really knows . . .

That is called bias, and it IS the hurdle that must be overcome in your understanding.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=237443 A fun thread that just started up at the JREF about single celled organism evolution.

I presented the inconsistencies of your statement, and even posted quotes from the articles and papers which you presented as evidence that clearly indicate that conclusions are premature. Yet you have not commented at all on your earlier statements, nor have you explained a position of critical examination. You even have the audacity to expect us to believe you do not support these things even tho you link to them.

I mean all one must do is say that this is interesting, but too early to have clear efficacy for any given treatments.

Early research is fun, but not something someone should make life decisions based on.

See peter I am trying to add to the dialectic, something which I criticize you for failing to do.

Very true. Christopher Hitchens died of pneumonia, due to immune suppression from cancer treatments. Money did not save Chris sadly.

Sad really.

Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks.

I am curious what you think this paragraph means.



You think this means inconclusive?

Because you seemed so sure when I quoted you saying Marijuana protects against cancer, or is it now inconclusive?

I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors.

What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting.

Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically.

This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Your uncritical, or even complete lack of examination shows that your only purpose is to support your own pot smoking habits and not to actually understand the science involved.

I love this stuff peter, keep it up, you are a great example of how a lack of scientific understanding leads to misguided, premature, and potentially risky beliefs.

Very true.

Ok, this is easy. I didn't even have to leave the page to find one.




This is from the links you posted. Your statements are inconsistent with the links you are posting.

NEXT>

You must you keep responding to them.

I just enjoy pointing out your inconsistencies, although I have to say it wears you out! Too many to keep up.


As to the actual claim that cannabis helps prevent cancer, the research is very new, and as 80% of preliminary research turns out to be flawed, or incorrect, it is too early to say with certainty that cannabis have a preventative effect or not. I do believe it should garner additional research, the set of chemicals have a wide application as neurotransmitters and could benefit other medical sectors as well.

If a person is going to consume cannabis with the idea it offers some protection against cancer, they should at least vaporize it, or make food with it. Inhaling all of that tar, and particulate matter is going to increase your risks of lung cancer and likely far outweigh any protective benefit that may actually exist.

From the first link:
As is the case with most things, its a mixed bag, scientists want to isolate different cannabinoid-related drugs to selectively activate these receptors they believe may inhibit tumor progression. Right now too many different reactions are occurring with a wide range of different cellular activation.

ie, dont bet the farm smoking pot is going to have any benefit what so ever for tumor progression, becuase chances are it wont.

So he was talking about her beating him in pushups, and that she doesn't go all the way down was in reference to pushups . . . and the media loves this **** . . .

Sigh.