[Hydrogen]

The funny part about this whole evolution debate is that evolution itself is a very old and well-recognized source of change. Greek philosophers noted the idea over 2,000 years ago. The issue has always been inflammatory when humans are included in the process. Suddenly the concept faces opposition since it knocks humanity off of a self-assumed pedestal.

Darwin's contribution was in providing a mechanism for that change.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I wonder why creationists didn't protest when G. Bush devoted money to the prevention of avian flu in humans. According to them, humans will never get avian flu because that would require that the virus evolves - and species are fixed.[/QUOTE]

And I wonder why Darwinists would advocate for the development of a vaccine. Even the most dangerous virus is unlikely to kill us all. Those of us who survive will live to procreate and pass on our superiour genes. This natural selection will make for a stronger human race.

 

[theman23]

And I wonder why Darwinists would advocate for the development of a vaccine. Even the most dangerous virus is unlikely to kill us all. Those of us who survive will live to procreate and pass on our superiour genes. This natural selection will make for a stronger human race.

Terrible comparison. For one, there are obvious ethical reasons as to why this wasn't done. Secondly, it isn't true. We'll only be "stronger" until the next deadly strain emerges. Evolution isn't some linear process where the end result will be an immortal and omnipotent organism.

 

[afransen]

Yes. Successful species tend to be fairly adaptable. Humans are successful because of our social and technological ability that allows us to live in environments that would kill us in hours with it. We aren't actually all that tough, physically.

As far as viruses go, it is almost so random that I doubt there is a large evolutionary effect.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

IMO, in any given amount of time, viruses go through soo much more generations than humans that it is impossible to shape humans to be resistant to specific strands. we can't depend on natural selection as a means to make our species healthy and immune from everything. our intelligence takes over where biology fails. killing a large segment of the population to make the descendants stronger is useless for reasons stated above. understanding the most complicated functions & processes in our body and how to manipulate them (to correct conditions that cause suffering) will do a much better job at helping humanity.

 

[Hydrogen]

I wonder why creationists didn't protest when G. Bush devoted money to the prevention of avian flu in humans. According to them, humans will never get avian flu because that would require that the virus evolves - and species are fixed.

And I wonder why Darwinists would advocate for the development of a vaccine. Even the most dangerous virus is unlikely to kill us all. Those of us who survive will live to procreate and pass on our superiour genes. This natural selection will make for a stronger human race.

To try and answer your first question, creationists are not thinking about the evolution of disease when considering avian influenza; they are just thinking about the disease. But you raise a good point: human beings offer up a potential environment that a flu virus could use to replicate and maximize its own survival. Most human immune systems could probably cope, but many others would not.

As for your second point concerning Darwinists, while avian influenza is unlikely to kill a majority of a population should it mutate to infect humans, creating a vaccine that would save lives and maximize survival fits quite well with the idea of life as a survival machine. Flu vaccines stimulate an immune response. So in a sense, our actions of creating vaccines fits reasonably well in evolutionary thinking in many ways.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

i heard that accounting for evolution goes into the making of the flu vaccine. right now (or soon), they are studying the strains of flu in the southern hemisphere and trying to predict how it will change by the time it gets here in our next flu season.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know


1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

 

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know


1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

So would this movie be more or less honest than something from Michael Moore who told American audiences through his movies Bowling for Columbine and Sicko that Canadians live in a socialist utopia of unlimited free medical care and crime free neighbourhoods where we regularly leave our doors unlocked?

 

[Hydrogen]

I don't recall Moore ever suggesting that Canadians live in a socialist utopia. Did he ever say such a thing in his films?

Moore is a polemicist who uses comparisons not to aggrandize countries like Canada or France, but does so as a means to critique certain problems and issues that exist in the United States.

Stein, on the other hand, is a propagandist along the lines (though not quite as extreme as - yet) of Joseph Goebbels, who purposefully misquotes, exaggerates, falsifies lies and deceives as a means to promote his own beliefs which he views as beyond questioning.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I don't recall Moore ever suggesting that Canadians live in a socialist utopia. Did he ever say such a thing in his films?

Moore is a polemicist who uses comparisons not to aggrandize countries like Canada or France, but does so as a means to critique certain problems and issues that exist in the United States.

Stein, on the other hand, is a propagandist along the lines (though not quite as extreme as - yet) of Joseph Goebbels, who purposefully misquotes, exaggerates, falsifies lies and deceives as a means to promote his own beliefs which he views as beyond questioning.

His movie Sicko praised Canada's health care system neglecting to mention long queue's, doctor shortages and emergency transfers to Buffalo due to lack of beds. He walked into stranger's houses unannounced to demonstrate that Canadians don't lock their doors. Do you know anyone who doesn't lock their doors. How is this anything but lies and deception?

 

[Hydrogen]

Like I said, Moore is a polemicist. I don't expect accurate or absolutely factual information from him. His is political drama, no doubt about it. And most certainly in the process he glossed over many important points and salient facts when comparisons were drawn between the two countries. But in the end, he was asking whether many tens of millions of working Americans would not be better off with some form of a public health insurance plan that afforded them the most basic of health services.


The difference between Canadians being sent to Buffalo for medical care and Americans without health insurance is that Canadians can get into American hospitals when need be because of public health insurance in this country. Americans who can't afford private insurance can't afford many services. Provincial health plans can pay for these services, so this means Canadian patients can get in for treatment.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

So would this movie be more or less honest than something from Michael Moore who told American audiences through his movies Bowling for Columbine and Sicko that Canadians live in a socialist utopia of unlimited free medical care and crime free neighbourhoods where we regularly leave our doors unlocked?

what does moore have to do with what we are talking about?

 

[afransen]

His movie Sicko praised Canada's health care system neglecting to mention long queue's, doctor shortages and emergency transfers to Buffalo due to lack of beds. He walked into stranger's houses unannounced to demonstrate that Canadians don't lock their doors. Do you know anyone who doesn't lock their doors. How is this anything but lies and deception?

My house if frequently unlocked when I'm home. I lock it when I am asleep or no one's home. Does this count?