Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Naruto_661
Thread: Naruto_661
View Single Post
Old 02-09-2014, 03:58 PM   #16416
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 172
Thanks: 125
Thanked 97 Times in 55 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Naruto_661

Originally Posted by Numinous View Post

You clearly aren't aware of creationist arguments, are you? Because:

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.
Where have I denied that macro evolution's existence?
I've claimed the modern human being is no longer suffering any natural pressures that could force the species towards certain traits. Thus there is no macroevolution.

Of course this isn't the case with other animals.
We are dealing specifically with the modern human here. Have I denied the existence of homo sapiens ancestors?

So people with a brain simply steered away from using the terms micro/macroevolution to avoid soiling with creationists
Congratulations, you've stopped using legitimate scientific terms to accommodate a group. I don't care about the opinions of creationist nor should they effect scientific discourse.

and terms such as Macro and micro evoluton are still readily used in the scientific community. Scientific articles and research as recent as 2013 have been using the terminology.

I don't know why you continue to pretend to know what you're talking about when once again, a quick google search would provide you with factual information.

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.

Once again you continue to just make up stuff out of the blue.
macro and micro evolution are terms continuously used in articles that aren't written for the general populous but as primary sources for other scientist.

Well, thanks for yet again confirming you don't read the links you provide. The first fucking sentence:
The higher percentage of humans with sickle celll disease is directly correlated with the mosquito population in those regions.

As the mosquito's are eliminated just like they were in the Middle east or India the micro evolutionary changes will be "reversed" in the sense that the population will return to the global norm.

Meaning the adaptation was only temporary and will never last long enough to be a component any type of Macro-evolutionary changes.

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).
See above.

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.
You're playing what if scenarios, im going by what is known. Once agian india and the Middle east both suffered from higher rate of sickle cell disease cases until they eliminated large parts of the mosquito population.

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 norm being "humans without sickle cell disease are more fit than those with" which is the "global norm". While in certain African regions right now this may not be the absolute truth.

Errr, don't you mean that backwards considering what "is nothing compared" means in the context of time?
The point was technological advancements and medical progress happen at much faster rate than the time span it takes evolution to bring significant changes to the population.

people that are genetically capable of resisting HIV have less and less advantages compared to those who can't since these same people can now live normal lives and produce offspring even if afflicted with the disease.

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.
Evolution is at the end solely a product of genetics.
"haha, thats why immunity isn't proof of evolution", was reference to the fact that you keep saying the first nation people with better immune systems because of their genes caused them to survive attacks from new pathogens.

Which is nonsensical because what makes an immune system good has little to do with genetics. Simply put, you are either born with a weak immune system that would most likely meant death in colonial times, or you're born with a NORMAL immune system that is strengthen with time, diet and medical attention.

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.
Which was exactly my point. In the modern world it doesn't matter if you're born with asthma or certain allergies. Your life expectancy will probably be the same as totally healthy human being thanks to the medical help available.

An animal born with a trait detrimental to its survival can still survive but it would be an outlier and not represent normal survival rate of those born with those characteristics.

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.
Evolution is taught to almost everyone in Sciences in college/university. Apart from those doing pure physics, math or pure chemistry.

Biotechnology the program im studying in is a double major in biochemistry and biotechnology.

By the way, you have no idea what the word "irony" means. That seriously made no sense.

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.
Like I said, a person with autoimmune diseases born in colonial times would of probably died regardless if he was exposed to new pathogens brought by the Europeans or not.

autoimmune disorders basically can't tell "foe from friend" to put it simply. Dude would of most probably died from attacks of ANY pathogen.

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.
How strong an immune system becomes has to do with that persons diet.
Everyone's immune system's work the same way unless you're born with a mutation causing autoimmune disorders, asthma, or allergies.

All healthy human beings are born with "normal immune systems" that function the same. An immune system grows stronger or weaker with time depending on various controllable factors like diet, number of pathogens a person has combated to build resistance), sleep, exercise, etc..

A STRONG immune system is not inherited, it is developed.
here are your citations:

Weak immune systems however, can be inherited however because they are caused by genetic mutation.

Then why do you make arguments that imply such a thing?
which argument have I made "implying such a thing"?

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.
lol yes, the world didn't wake up one day to find themselves all lactose tolerant.

That goes without saying.

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.
If by "today" you mean thousands of years ago like I said before....

See now you're straight up lying.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote