Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Naruto_661
Thread: Naruto_661
View Single Post
Old 02-08-2014, 08:38 PM   #16413
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Naruto_661

Zombie Jesus, this faux knowledge from Mr. Big just makes my head hurt.

Creationist terms? Why would a creationist (a person whom doesn't believe in evolution) use terms like macro and micro evolution?
You clearly aren't aware of creationist arguments, are you? Because:

There is a legitimate scientific meaning to the terminology I've been using.
There WAS a legitimate scientific meaning to the terminology you used before creationists abused the shit out of it. Ever since the trials in the 60's, creationists had to recognize microevolution as a fact but, being the sniveling weasels they are, filled their strawmen with new straw, being the most popular argument that "evolutionists" believe in 6, 6! types of evolution that follow different processes: Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic, Macro & Micro. Somehow only microevolution is true and people are dumb to believe in macroevolution, and they parrot this over and over and over.

So people with a brain simply steered away from using the terms micro/macroevolution to avoid soiling with creationists and used other, more appropriate terms (like speciation) and/or simply called evolution to both because, well, that's what they are and one isn't different from the other, one is simply bigger.

So of course you'll get links with those terms, dum-dum, many sites have it for people who don't know what those terms (are supposed to) mean.

I make the distinction between macro and micro evolution because one is very localized while the former is of on a grander scale (the entire species).
Well, thanks for yet again confirming you don't read the links you provide. The first fucking sentence:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
Sickle cell disease was prominent in india and the middle east until they managed to reduce the mosquito population which in return decreased risk of malaria. Thus the population returned to norm.

The same thing is currently happening in Africa. So to assume that sickle cell diseased humans will somehow become the norm is erroneous considering the historical precedent i've mentioned above.
First, who the fuck said that sickle cell disease will become the norm? Not me, certainly. What I've said is that it is a trait of a population (thus proving that different population do have different genetic traits).

But such thought is NOT erroneous, considering such trait could very well be selected even without malaria because of how the resistance mechanism works: sickle cells are simply too deficient for the Plasmodium to reproduce, so if a pandemic of a parasite or a virus that depends on erythrocytes for propagation, people with sickle cell disease will survive such pandemic and make the trait much more prevalent.

Also, what the hell do you mean with "returning to norm"? I could assume a wide array of things from an expression I never saw used in the context of genetics, but it's better for you to clarify it.

The time it would take for the entire human population to develop HIV resistance is nothing compared to the time it took for us to develop medicine and treatment for those afflicted by the virus to reproduce and remain active members of society.
Errr, don't you mean that backwards considering what "is nothing compared" means in the context of time? And nice to see the point flew right above your head... or you didn't bother to read this line:

And mind you, HIV is a rather passive pathogen that has a long incubation period and we're having much trouble with it, you really think that a pandemic of a much more aggressive pathogen with a short incubation period that can happen at any given time will be countered just fine?
Theres no reason why population size and technological advancement can't both be explanations to this phenomenon.
Okay, there's the confirmation, you didn't bother to read what I actually write.

One thing you're almost right, but still wrong: population bottleneck events aren't/won't be as deep as previous ones, but not mainly because we're more advanced, it's because our population is ridiculously gargantuan (considering the norm of non-domesticated mammalian species).
To say that our medical advancements hasn't kept people alive longer then they would of normally is totally false.
Who the flying fuck said that?! Really, I do want to know!

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. The immune system's ability to make different anti-bodies and improve them is not proof of "evolution".
Wow, you're stupid. I say that evolution is not solely focused by genetics and you say "haha, that's why immunity isn't proof of evolution!". Or did you not read the whole thing again and got stuck on "is driven by genetics" like a spaz? Last time I checked, the gene pool is a vital part of genetics.

People of weak immune systems survive all the time. Hence why a huge deal of the current population suffer from asthma and allergies.
You do realize such exceptions have always and will always exist and that none have denied them, right? Hell, species other than humans (that I suppose you don't consider evolutionarily locked) do have cases of individuals with harmful traits surviving (albinism being an example). Their survival rate isn't as high as humans', but they're still there. So your special pleading is pretty much pointless.

It is strongly evident now that you do not understand how the immune system works.
Says the guy who is trying to preach the word of evolution to the choir of biochemistry and medicine. Double the irony considering the immune response is something taught in biochemistry. Triple the irony for the following:

People born with weak immune system because of genetic mutations will suffer obvious symptoms. Such as an auto-immune diseases and asthma which would probably cause their deaths back in those colonial times; regardless of being exposed to new pathogens or not.
I guess I have to apologize for pointing out pathogens during the Discoveries/Colonial Era without explaining appropriately how the immune response works, because you thinking auto-immune diseases and other related diseases somehow are disconnected of exposure to pathogens when the source of such exposure also is the source of antigens that could trigger such immune diseases is simply baffling.

The native Americans that survive the onslaught of new viruses and bacteria were those that were well fed and taken care of with medicine to strengthen their immune systems.
I'll take a zinger from Wikipedia: citation needed.

Which means a wide array of native Americans were able to transfer their genes to the next generation without necessarily having common traits. This isn't evolution considering their young could be born just as weak as the native's that died. There is no selection of a certain trait nor convergence to one.
Are you kidding me? You do know that the production and efficiency of the immune response and its components are dependent on the genetic material of the person, right? But somehow, in your mind, the efficiency of the immune system of the descendants of those who survived won't necessarily have common traits with their parents? Just... wut. The only way that would make sense would be if you erroneously think that the immune response is solely done with antigen/antibody interactions (which yes, that's something every human has to acquire by themselves and not by inheritance)... but it's not.

I've never claimed such a thing.
Then why do you make arguments that imply such a thing?

My point was that using skin color to recognize subspeciation or speciation is just as ludicrous as saying hair color or ear lob length or a variety of diverse physical traits we posses could do the same.
Again you don't bother to read what I write.

Not only didn't I say that race is evidence of speciation, but rather that race is evidence of the differences in different populations' genetic pool, race could be one of the traits to recognize (sub)speciation if a certain set of humans gather enough genetic differences along with race to recognize them as a new (sub)species. But, of course, that'd would take hundreds of thousands of years that our civilization doesn't have even a tenth of that.
The formation of a species or a subspecies requires an entire population to converge towards specific traits.
Nope. Just a group with a big enough gene pool (50 individuals being the bare minimum) suffices.

Did I say different?
Yes, you did. You mentioned humans in a generalized form, which excludes the hypothesis of different human groups to form lactose tolerance at different times.

Are we still talking about lactose tolerance here? Pretty this is a trait that has found it's way around the globe. And like I said it was developed back when natural selection pressures were still influencing the human population.
I'm sorry, but I do have to ask you: in what flying fuck of a year did natural selection pressures somehow poof'd out of existence for you to assert such a thing if Asian and African populations are experiencing a rise on lactose tolerance TODAY? We're not talking about the Americans or the Aussies, where the European genetic material was spread like wildfire, we're talking about regions of the planet where reception of genetic material from Europeans is little to none.
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Last edited by Numinous; 02-08-2014 at 08:42 PM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote