Purpose of Mosquitos and other pests

[Kylie]

Why would you expect creationism should? I guess, I mean, why do you go there? Creationism isn't about predictions. If I was to make a prediction from Creationism, I suppose I would say that human DNA will always be human DNA. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

Then creationism tells us absolutely nothing testable, and thus it can't ever be shown to be true. It's unfalsifiable, which means it is utterly useless as an explanation of how the world works.

 

[Kylie]

How do results NOT match reality? Do you mean, 'conclusions' or something?

If the theories we have now are built on flawed information, what are the chances that they would produce results that match what actually happens?

For example, if our theories about star formation were wrong, why would they provide results that match what we actually see stars doing?

So, if the theory matches what we actually see, that is evidence that the theory is correct.

No way. I'm too stupid and too ignorant and too lazy and too old for kernal knowledge.

I think it's quite clear that I was asking if you thought it was possible hypothetically for someone to predict the end result.

Please don't play these silly games./

The validity of Gravity, or of Evolution, is irrelevant to the point. The accepted range of meaning/use, or 'scope', is more to the point.

Are you actually saying that the validity of evolution is irrelevant to a discussion about the validity of evolution?

Sure. Not sure why you bring it up. Are we arguing validity? I must've lost track. Sorry.

I have been. My position in this thread has always been that evolutionary theory explains very well the reason we have mosquitos.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then creationism tells us absolutely nothing testable, and thus it can't ever be shown to be true. It's unfalsifiable, which means it is utterly useless as an explanation of how the world works.

Looks like science is SOL then, doesn't it?

(short on luck)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Gravity may be immediately obvious, but some of its consequences need detailed analysis. For example, analysis of the gravitational dynamics of star clusters implies that the lifetime of open clusters (such as the Pleiades, Praesepe and M67) is about 3000 million years, and that the lifetime of globular clusters (such as omega Centauri and M13) is about ten billion years. These ages confirm those obtained for the Earth from radiometric dating and for the universe from the observed rate of expansion.

Sure, no doubt. You are missing the point, I think. But, oh well.

Regardless, this tangent came from another tangent concerning semantics, neither of which have much to do with the tangent that came off the OP.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, evolution is a well understood force. Yes, it's not a fundamental force, but let's face it, there are only four of those, and we've got equations that cover several of them together. So unless you are saying that we should have at most four theories (one for each of the fundamental forces), then what you're saying here is just wrong.

Ok

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, evolution is a well understood force. Yes, it's not a fundamental force, but let's face it, there are only four of those, and we've got equations that cover several of them together. So unless you are saying that we should have at most four theories (one for each of the fundamental forces), then what you're saying here is just wrong.

Ok

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then creationism tells us absolutely nothing testable, and thus it can't ever be shown to be true. It's unfalsifiable, which means it is utterly useless as an explanation of how the world works.

Well, we've got DNA mapped now. In a few more thousand years, who knows, we might all have a functional infrared sensor.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If the theories we have now are built on flawed information, what are the chances that they would produce results that match what actually happens?

If the theories we have now are built on flawed information, what are the chances that they would produce results that match what actually happens?

For example, if our theories about star formation were wrong, why would they provide results that match what we actually see stars doing?

So, if the theory matches what we actually see, that is evidence that the theory is correct.

I think it's quite clear that I was asking if you thought it was possible hypothetically for someone to predict the end result.

Please don't play these silly games./

WHAT results? I'm not disputing whether there are results. What I'm asking is what results are you referring to.

My 'silly game' was because *I* obviously don't have the savvy to predict such a thing. Your question was rhetorical. You knew I know I don't.

Are you actually saying that the validity of evolution is irrelevant to a discussion about the validity of evolution?

I thought we were off on a tangent about the question of whether Gravity is a theory.

I have been. My position in this thread has always been that evolutionary theory explains very well the reason we have mosquitos.

Ok.

 

[Shemjaza]

WHAT results? I'm not disputing whether there are results. What I'm asking is what results are you referring to.

My 'silly game' was because *I* obviously don't have the savvy to predict such a thing. Your question was rhetorical. You knew I know I don't.



I thought we were off on a tangent about the question of whether Gravity is a theory.

Ok.

Evolutionary theory and principles allow us to update vaccines, pesticides and herbicides to keep up with a targeted virus or life form.

Evolutionary theory explains the consistent patterns of similarity found in genetics and geology.

It has informed the processes that have lead to xeno transplants and targeted gene therapies.

It has been extremely practical in several fields both in and outside biology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evolutionary theory and principles allow us to update vaccines, pesticides and herbicides to keep up with a targeted virus or life form.

Evolutionary theory explains the consistent patterns of similarity found in genetics and geology.

It has informed the processes that have lead to xeno transplants and targeted gene therapies.

It has been extremely practical in several fields both in and outside biology.

And.... ?

 

[Kylie]

Looks like science is SOL then, doesn't it?

(short on luck)

Science doesn't need luck.

It has results.

 

[Kylie]

Well, we've got DNA mapped now. In a few more thousand years, who knows, we might all have a functional infrared sensor.

How does this have anything to do with what I was speaking about?

 

[Shemjaza]

And.... ?

Your question was "WHAT results?".

You seemed to be asking for demonstration of the practical uses for the theory of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

Your question was "WHAT results?".

You seemed to be asking for demonstration of the practical uses for the theory of evolution.

Results or uses also include use of index fossils for dating
strata.

You sure don't find trilobites in the Miocene.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sure don't find trilobites in the Miocene.

Trilobites ... yes.

Miocene ... no such thing ... only on paper.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Science doesn't need luck.

It has results.

In fact, there is no such thing as luck, which is why I say "good luck" to those who wish to present free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Science doesn't need luck.

It has results.

In fact, there is no such thing as luck, which is why I say "good luck" to those who wish to present free will.

Your question was "WHAT results?".

You seemed to be asking for demonstration of the practical uses for the theory of evolution.

I was not denying results. I was asking what results was she referring to. It was not a debate argument I was hinting at, it was just information I was looking for.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How does this have anything to do with what I was speaking about?

Admittedly ignorant to the subject of DNA etc., I was saying that large scale genetic change of a species through small-scale non-sterile beneficial mutations can be well tested after many years, since we have current DNA mapped by which a comparison can be made in a few thousand years, including generations of samples between times. No missing links.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How does this have anything to do with what I was speaking about?

Admittedly ignorant to the subject of DNA etc., I was saying that large scale genetic change of a species through small-scale non-sterile beneficial mutations can be well tested after many years, since we have current DNA mapped by which a comparison can be made in a few thousand years, including generations of samples between times. No missing links.

My snarky 'infrared sensor' comment was to show my skepticism that a few thousand years will demonstrate any genetic change significant to theory of large-scale genetic change.

 

[sjastro]

Getting back to the topic which involve the subject of mosquito bites science has debunked the myth mosquitoes prefer to snack off women.

Mosquitoes find some people tastier than others. But a widespread notion is that women, to mosquitoes at least, are the sweeter sex, supposedly because estrogen is a strong attractant.
In reality, gender does play a role, but not in the way most people think. As one report in the Annals of Internal Medicine pointed out, men are more likely to be attacked, primarily because of their greater body size.
“Larger persons tend to attract more mosquitoes,” the study said, “perhaps because of their greater relative heat or carbon dioxide.”

The bottom line
Research suggests that men are more likely to be attacked by mosquitoes than are women.