Evolutionary debate

[SkyWriting]

So which one is literal, and which one is full of mythology?
And, btw, lucaspa never said that he assumed they were both literal

So which version of the creation account is 'factual'?
Which one is 'literal'?

You need to look for evidence to decide which is the "documentary" version and which is not.

 

[SkyWriting]

....But it's the only one that matters....

"Kind" is the only one that matters. Which animals are in common with each other. Not which are separate from each other.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was absolutely no evidence...

I'm not talking about 'no evidence' -- I'm talking about 'evidence'.

Was there, or was there not, sufficient evidence to market this drug as a wonder drug for pregnant women, and to convince other nations to follow suit?

Or do we market pharmaceuticals now without evidence to back it up?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do we really have to look back millions of years to see evolution? Look at the seasonal Flu. It changes every year, would that not be considered evolution?

Sure. But not the kind that gradually produced humans from another form of life.

 

[Cassiterides]

Japheth is considered the progenitor of the Europeans.

Europeans are from Shem/Jacob. Judah>Zerah>Darda. Darda is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2: 6. The same name appears as the progenitor as the Trojans (Dardanus), who gave his name to the Dardanelles.

Type: ''Zerah'' in on creationwiki, there is a whole article about it with better ancient documentation. The ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon, wrote of the Greek Titan Kronus:

"Kronus, whom the Phoenicians called Israel, had a son Jehud.''

So according to Sanchuniathon, Dardanus (who founded the Trojan kingdom) was a descendant of Jehud (Judah) whose father was Israel.

1 Maccabees 12: 20-22 also contains a very interesting statement:

''It is found in writing concerning the Spartans, and the Jews, that they are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham.''

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm not talking about 'no evidence' -- I'm talking about 'evidence'.

Was there, or was there not, sufficient evidence to market this drug as a wonder drug for pregnant women, and to convince other nations to follow suit?

Or do we market pharmaceuticals now without evidence to back it up?

That was 50 years ago AV and the US FDA did reject the drug. Teratogenic effects from drugs were not anticipated or really understood at that time. BTW thalidomide is a valuable drug for treatment of both erythema nodosum leprosum and multiple myeloma but of course great must be taken with women of child bearing potential. The fact that pharmaceutical scientists overlooked a rather complex problem (the teratogenicity comes from only one enantomer (optical isomer) of Thalidomide and the safe enantomer can be converted to the teratogenic one in the body) fifty years ago has no bearing on the fact that the global flood has been falsified by multiple lines of evidence that you can't begin to refute. Yes other countries should have rejected the the drug until further testing the way the US did but that is not relevant to the argument here as much as you may wish to hide behind it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Europeans are from Shem/Jacob. Judah>Zerah>Darda. Darda is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2: 6. The same name appears as the progenitor as the Trojans (Dardanus), who gave his name to the Dardanelles.

Type: ''Zerah'' in on creationwiki, there is a whole article about it with better ancient documentation. The ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon, wrote of the Greek Titan Kronus:

"Kronus, whom the Phoenicians called Israel, had a son Jehud.''

So according to Sanchuniathon, Dardanus (who founded the Trojan kingdom) was a descendant of Jehud (Judah) whose father was Israel.

1 Maccabees 12: 20-22 also contains a very interesting statement:

''It is found in writing concerning the Spartans, and the Jews, that they are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham.''

Looks like you guys need to get your myths straighted out.

 

[Hespera]

That was 50 years ago AV and the US FDA did reject the drug. Teratogenic effects from drugs were not anticipated or really understood at that time. BTW thalidomide is a valuable drug for treatment of both erythema nodosum leprosum and multiple myeloma but of course great must be taken with women of child bearing potential. The fact that pharmaceutical scientists overlooked a rather complex problem (the teratogenicity comes from only one enantomer (optical isomer) of Thalidomide and the safe enantomer can be converted to the teratogenic one in the body) fifty years ago has no bearing on the fact that the global flood has been falsified by multiple lines of evidence that you can't begin to refute. Yes other countries should have rejected the the drug until further testing the way the US did but that is not relevant to the argument here as much as you may wish to hide behind it.

facts schmacts. Thalidomide strikes again in its new role as a derailer.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

facts schmacts. Thalidomide strikes again in its new role as a derailer.

Good Grief. Don't tell me that poor old Pluto is going to get demoted again!

 

[AV1611VET]

Europeans are from Shem/Jacob. Judah>Zerah>Darda. Darda is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2: 6. The same name appears as the progenitor as the Trojans (Dardanus), who gave his name to the Dardanelles.

Type: ''Zerah'' in on creationwiki, there is a whole article about it with better ancient documentation. The ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon, wrote of the Greek Titan Kronus:

"Kronus, whom the Phoenicians called Israel, had a son Jehud.''

So according to Sanchuniathon, Dardanus (who founded the Trojan kingdom) was a descendant of Jehud (Judah) whose father was Israel.

1 Maccabees 12: 20-22 also contains a very interesting statement:

''It is found in writing concerning the Spartans, and the Jews, that they are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham.''

WOW!

No comment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not talking about 'no evidence' -- I'm talking about 'evidence'.

Was there, or was there not, sufficient evidence to market this drug as a wonder drug for pregnant women, and to convince other nations to follow suit?

There was sufficient evidence to warrant calling it a wonder drug: it did indeed do the miraculous things claimed of it. However, there was insufficient evidence (and, indeed, trials) to rule out abnormal side-effects. Nonetheless, it was pushed through the lax regulations of the time.

Or do we market pharmaceuticals now without evidence to back it up?

Nowadays, we need stringent evidence-based clinical trials to back medical claims up. Back then, rules were more lax. Indeed, the Thalidomide incident is the main reason the rules are as strict as they are today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes other countries should have rejected the the drug until further testing the way the US did but that is not relevant to the argument here as much as you may wish to hide behind it.

The way the US did???

You want this to happen again?

The US put pressure on one woman to okay the drug, and she refused -- (God bless her).

In 1960, Frances Oldham Kelsey was hired by the FDA in Washington, DC. At that time, she "was one of only seven full-time and four young part-time physicians reviewing drugs"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey#cite_note-fda1-1 for the FDA. One of her first assignments at the FDA, was to review application by Richardson Merrell for the drug thalidomide (under the tradename Kevadon) as a tranquiliser and painkiller with specific indications to prescribe the drug to pregnant women for morning sickness. Even though it had already been approved in Canada and over 20 European and African countries, she http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey#cite_note-acs-5 withheld approval for the drug, and requested further studies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey#cite_note-heirloom-0Despite pressure from thalidomide's manufacturer, Kelsey persisted in requesting additional information to explain an English study that documented a nervous system side effect.

Let's hope this never becomes the norm.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was sufficient evidence to warrant calling it a wonder drug: it did indeed do the miraculous things claimed of it. However, there was insufficient evidence (and, indeed, trials) to rule out abnormal side-effects. Nonetheless, it was pushed through the lax regulations of the time.


Nowadays, we need stringent evidence-based clinical trials to back medical claims up. Back then, rules were more lax. Indeed, the Thalidomide incident is the main reason the rules are as strict as they are today.

Interesting how you stop just short of saying scientists were wrong.

Equally interesting is how you place this into the hands of legislators.

Why do we even need legislation if science is so exact?

Oh, that's right -- to take the blame.

Like the Challenger was NASA's administration fault.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Interesting how you stop just short of saying scientists were wrong.

Equally interesting is how you place this into the hands of legislators.

Lax regulations are what allowed thalidomide to slip through. Whose fault is that, if not the legislators? Naturally, scientists are to blame too: Thalidomide was endorsed by scientists and doctors. But, of course, it was scientists and doctors who realised their error, and worked to correct it. If they didn't, you'd probably still have Republicans denying to this day that Thalidomide is dangerous.

Why do we even need legislation if science is so exact?

Because it's not an omniscience. It takes time to accrue and collate sufficient data to come to a concrete conclusion. Back in the day, the precise mechanism of where rain came from was anyone's guess. Now, we have sufficient data to have a pretty damn good idea. The fine details are being worked out, but the mechanism itself is known.
Thalidomide is a good example of what happens when people act before sufficient data is gathered.

Oh, that's right -- to take the blame.

Like the Challenger was NASA's administration fault.

The science was sound - the engineering was not. The magnetic quench at the LHC doesn't refute the whole field of particle physics, after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lax regulations are what allowed thalidomide to slip through.

Are you telling me that legislators know more science than the scientists themselves do?

Can you tell me why scientists need a leash?

Whose fault is that, if not the legislators?

Well ... ummm ... the scientists themselves?

Naturally, scientists are to blame too:

Unless it's legislature's fault?

Thalidomide was endorsed by scientists and doctors.

Now we're getting somewhere.

But, of course, it was scientists and doctors who realised their error, and worked to correct it.

When it comes to pharmaceuticals, this trial-and-error, with we plebeians being the lab rats, is ridiculous.

If they didn't, you'd probably still have Republicans denying to this day that Thalidomide is dangerous.

Riiiight.

Because it's not an omniscience. It takes time to accrue and collate sufficient data to come to a concrete conclusion.

And what part, pray tell, do the legislators play in this?

What do they know that the scientists themselves don't?

If I was a legislator, and a barrel of scientists came to me and said, "Look! This stuff is safer than drinking water! Let's go! England's doing it. Canada's doing it. All Pangaea except we are doing it!"

I'd probably push for it too.

 

[HasturX]

The US put pressure on one woman to okay the drug, and she refused -- (God bless her).

LOL.....

You claim that the US put pressure to ok the drug then post this..

Despite pressure from thalidomide's manufacturer,

Which shows that it wasn't the US that was pressuring her but the manufacture.

 

[lucaspa]

Sure. But not the kind that gradually produced humans from another form of life.

That is exactly the kind that produced humans from another primate ancestor.

"Strains" of flu are actually new species of influenza. They are still within the larger taxonomic classification of "influenza". Just like humans are within the larger taxonomic classification of "ape" and "primate". Once you have changes that will produce a new species, there is nothing to stop multiple speciations spread thru time producing humans from "another form of life".

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

 

[lucaspa]

Indeed. There was absolutely no evidence that Thalidomide would cause foetal deformations, or indeed that any drug given to a pregnant woman could affect the foetus. The benefits of the drug are real, it is a wonder drug.

1. The reason "there was no evidence" is that the tests were not done. That is, no one tested thalidomide on pregnant animals. There was one clinical study done on the use of thalidomide for insomnia in third trimester pregnant women. No ill effects were found:
Trial of thalidomide in insomnia associated with the third trimester.
NULSEN RO. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Jun;81:1245-8.

Of course, by the third trimester, the window for causing those particular birth defects were past.

2. Rats do not exhibit the teratogenic effects of thalidomide. So even when the human data raised the hypothesis that thalidomide was teratogenic, the first animal tests were negative. It wasn't until different animal models were used that teratogenic effect of thalidomide was found:
Thalidomide studies in experimental animals.
BLATTNER RJ. J Pediatr. 1962 Aug;61:318-9.

I would call thalidomide a very good analgesic. "Wonder drug" is a bit strong and is used as an emotional bolster to your argument.

 

[Cassiterides]

Evolution vs. the Bible

The implications for the trustworthiness of the Bible are enormous with the theory of evolution. Is it the inspired and infallible Word of God, or are parts of it merely well-intentioned myths? Are sections of it simply inaccurate and unreliable? Were Jesus Christ and the apostles wrong when they affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, created directly by God (Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 15:45)?

Is 2 Timothy 3:16 true in stating that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine [teaching] . . ."? Clearly, the implications for Christian faith and teaching are profound.

Perhaps the effects of this theory on Darwin's own faith can illustrate the damage it can do to religious convictions. Darwin started as a theology student and a staunch respecter of the Bible. But as he formulated his theories, he lost faith in the Old Testament. Later he could no longer believe in the miracles of the New Testament.

There is great danger in following in Darwin's footsteps.

Without the belief in a just God who will judge the actions of men, isn't it easier for people to do as they please? Aldous Huxley, a fervent advocate of evolution, admitted why many quickly embraced evolution with such fervor:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning . . . The liberation we desired was . . . from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom" (Ends and Means, 1946, p. 70).

Could this kind of thinking have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is taught as fact?

 

[lucaspa]

Are you telling me that legislators know more science than the scientists themselves do?

Can you tell us why you are discussing this instead of evolution? Why are you trying to distract the discussion away from evolution? Having problems arguing against evolution and need to bash scientists a bit as a distraction?

This isn't about science, it's about safety and ethics. Science is not a system of ethics. It's about how much risk people are willing to take.

Can you tell me why scientists need a leash?

Not the scientists, the corporations. And corporations need a leash because of greed. Testing drugs requires money. Corporations like to minimize costs. One way to do that is minimal testing. So legislatures step in to ensure that corporations do not cut corners and put the public at a level of risk people consider unacceptable.

When it comes to pharmaceuticals, this trial-and-error, with we plebeians being the lab rats, is ridiculous.

We are always going to be the lab rats. BTW, why do you think lab rats can substitute for us? Because evolution is true.

However, because of two things -- both part of evolution -- no amount of animal testing is ever going to ensure that any drug is 100% safe:
1. Individuals vary. What is safe for one individual will not be safe, due to genetic differences, for another individual. We have to decide, outside of science, what constitutes an acceptable level of risk.

2. Descent with modification. Yes, due to our common ancestor, rats and humans are very similar physiologically. BUT, due to divergence from that common ancestor, there are also differences. So we can test all we want in animals, but humans (or some humans) may have a difference that causes a drug to have severe adverse side effects. Thalidomide is an example. Thalidomide is a racemic mixture of enantiomers (mirror-image molecules with the same molecular formula). One enantiomer is teratogenic in humans. Humans are able to convert the safe enantiomer to the teratogenic one.

This is why we have Phase I and II clinical trials. Both of those are designed to test the safety of a drug. Its effectiveness is irrelevant in Phase I trials and a distant second in Phase II trials. But both are done on limited numbers of patients. So sometimes, as with Celecoxib, the adverse effects are so rare that they are not statistically detectable in the Phase I and II trials. Only when tens of millions of people take them do we find the 0.0001% that have severe adverse side effects.

What do they know that the scientists themselves don't?

They know less than the scientists about science. But they are the duly elected representatives of the people to decide on what the people will accept in terms of risk. That's their job: decide what risks it is acceptable for the public to be exposed to.

If I was a legislator, and a barrel of scientists came to me and said, "Look! This stuff is safer than drinking water! Let's go! England's doing it. Canada's doing it. All Pangaea except we are doing it!"

I'd probably push for it too.

Actually, as you have shown, it wasn't "a barrel of scientists" that said this. It was the company that made Thalidomide.

But yes, you make decisions based on the data you have. When you get new data, you change your decision. You have a problem with that?