Anthrax Virus

Joe V. · Jul 11, 2002

So tell me something. Who has a better chance of tracking down the origins of the anthrax virus that killed - what was it? 5 people? Would someone trained in creationism (young or old) have a better chance than someone trained in evolutionary theory? Who do you suppose the U.S. government would rather use?

Clarification: I'm not asking if they will find the origins of the virus, I'm asking who has the better chance of doing so.

Edited to add:
If you can back up your assertion with examples of how either a creationist or an evolutionist would go about solving the case, that'd be neat, because I'm very interested to know how the creationists would go about doing it.

- Joe

Joe V. · Jul 11, 2002

*BUMP*

Come on, Nick, answer this one. You replied to the kool-aid thread pretty quickly.

- Joe

RufusAtticus · Jul 11, 2002

Creationists would have a better chance.

They would just open their bible, turn to Exodus are realize that diseases are the work of God. Thus God is behind the antrax attacks. Case solved.

npetreley · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Joe V.
So tell me something. Who has a better chance of tracking down the origins of the anthrax virus that killed - what was it? 5 people? Would someone trained in creationism (young or old) have a better chance than someone trained in evolutionary theory? Who do you suppose the U.S. government would rather use?

I don't know who the government would rather use, but neither makes a difference. The people you need to track down the source of the anthrax would include people who can analyze at many levels the anthrax that was used, including but not exclusively the genetic structure of the particular anthrax used. You'd also want criminologists looking into this, good detectives, you may want people who are experts at phone tapping, cryptology, and so on.

Whether any of them are evolutionists or creationists (including the person who knows genetics) is totally irrelevant. If the government chose one over the other, that would constitute (IMO) illegal discrimination, since it has nothing to do with the qualifications for the job.

I keep answering all your challenges. When is anyone going to answer my spineless stinkweed challenge?

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

You really don't read the news, do you? The strain of anthrax used in the attacks is in no way identical to any other strains. Unlike fingerprints, they can't match it up by 1 to 1 correspondence.

Yet, strangely, by using the Theory of Evolution, they can figure out what strain it came from, and how long ago it diverged. How weird.

Could Creationists do that?

RufusAtticus · Jul 11, 2002

I already told you, Morat, creationists knew the answer even before it happened.

npetreley · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
You really don't read the news, do you? The strain of anthrax used in the attacks is in no way identical to any other strains. Unlike fingerprints, they can't match it up by 1 to 1 correspondence.

It doesn't matter, but are you suggesting this particular strain was genetically engineered? Or that it evolved naturally from an existing strain of anthrax? And how would you know which it was if you didn't catch the people responsible?

Originally posted by Morat
Yet, strangely, by using the Theory of Evolution, they can figure out what strain it came from, and how long ago it diverged. How weird.

We're talking about knowledge of genetics and POTENTIALLY a way to detect a microevolution event. Are you suggesting that creationists don't know anything about genetics or microevolution?

Originally posted by Morat
Could Creationists do that?

Sure. Why not?

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

It doesn't matter, but are you suggesting this particular strain was genetically engineered? Or that it evolved naturally from an existing strain of anthrax? And how would you know which it was if you didn't catch the people responsible?

You mean you don't know the obvious markers of something be genetically engineered?

And that you didn't know how easy it was to tell divergence?

We're talking about knowledge of genetics and POTENTIALLY a way to detect a microevolution event. Are you suggesting that creationists don't know anything about genetics or microevolution?

Oh! So you're hypocrites. You'll use evolution, and then rant about how you don't believe it.

What's polyploidy, Nick? How could you detect it in fossils. Got an answer yet? I'm thinking of making that question my sig, complete with counter: "Number of days Nick has failed to answer the question"

Joe V. · Jul 11, 2002

Oh! So you're hypocrites. You'll use evolution, and then rant about how you don't believe it.

Yeah, that always kills me. They believe in microevolution, yet somehow, if enough micro changes occured over millions of years, it couldn't possibly result in a totally different species, i.e. macroevolution? What I'd like to know is, WHY would it not?

Oh, Rufus, if it's not too much to ask, could you possibly explain how they might trace it? I am genuinely curious.

- Joe

RufusAtticus · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Joe V.

Oh, Rufus, if it's not too much to ask, could you possibly explain how they might trace it? I am genuinely curious.

They already traced it to its source: God. No more work is needed.

npetreley · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Morat

You mean you don't know the obvious markers of something be genetically engineered?

Funny you should ask that, since you repeatedly refuse to deal with one of the ways to genetically engineer something that doesn't leave markers.

Originally posted by Morat

What's polyploidy, Nick? How could you detect it in fossils. Got an answer yet? I'm thinking of making that question my sig, complete with counter: "Number of days Nick has failed to answer the question"

You explained what polyploidy is. Why should I repeat it? Would that help? I'll gladly quote your definition if you like.

As to how to detect it in a fossil, I've answered that multiple times. You're just looking for some bogus test on the fossil itself, which is something I never required or suggested. So the number of days will have to remain at 0 unless you want to lie.

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

Given the unholy fascination certain radical-right groups historically have had with anthrax, sometimes I wonder.

However, looks like it's a disgruntled weapons-scientist.

Still, it must hurt Nick deep to know that the theory of evolution is what people are using, and not a single Creationist peep. After all, God's good and all, but when it comes to forensics, science seems to work quicker.

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

As to how to detect it in a fossil, I've answered that multiple times. You're just looking for some bogus test on the fossil itself, which is something I never required or suggested. So the number of days will have to remain at 0 unless you want to lie.

I'm not the liar here, Nick. You've explained how to point out if an descendent was polyploid.

Doesn't mean the fossil in question was. Keep weasleing, Nick.

"What criteria will you use to determine whether a fossil is polyploid or not?"

Jerry Smith · Jul 11, 2002

As to how to detect it in a fossil, I've answered that multiple times. You're just looking for some bogus test on the fossil itself, which is something I never required or suggested.

NEVER? or just not recently?...

npetreley · Jul 11, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
Still, it must hurt Nick deep to know that the theory of evolution is what people are using, and not a single Creationist peep. After all, God's good and all, but when it comes to forensics, science seems to work quicker.

Why you think I'm the least bit offended that someone would use microevolution theory is beyond me, as is the claim I would have anything against science. But if ithat's how you get your jollies, be my guest.

Unless you can demonstrate that belief in creation makes it impossible to study genetics, I really don't get your reasoning behind anything in this thread, so I'll drop out.

Morat · Jul 11, 2002

*shrug*. Why don't you devote your time to answering that polyploid question, hmm?

chickenman · Jul 11, 2002

beleif in creation doesn't make it impossible to study genetics

studying genetics (and understanding it) makes it impossible to believe in creation

Joe V. · Jul 11, 2002

They already traced it to its source: God. No more work is needed.

Oh, sure. Make me go look it up for myself why don't ya?? Well, I guess if I'm the butthead who wants to know...

- Joe

Anthrax Virus

Rabbit Worshipper

Rabbit Worshipper

PopGen Grad Student

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

PopGen Grad Student

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

Rabbit Worshipper

PopGen Grad Student

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

Untitled One

Fish out of water

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

evil unamerican

Rabbit Worshipper

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency