|
On November 10 2010 03:23 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet. Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
"Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/
Lets see what your sources have to say, but given my source all yours could possibly show is disagreement which would mean controversy.
|
I've had glasses since around the 4th and my eyes have gotten steadily worse (now I'm a junior in college). Lately they haven't been getting worse because I've finally pretty much quit growing. It seems that with me my eyes getting worse coincided with growth, I believe my eye doctor may have said something about this as well.
|
On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals.
|
On November 10 2010 03:34 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals.
No one completely understands evolution, but I already posted a source that backs up what I have been saying. Honestly it sounds like you think evolution is magic...how do you think natural selection and genetic drift occur without changes in individuals?
|
On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
Please read anything about evolution before you post, people like you are the best creationst can hope for. Even wiki (as bad as it is) would give you reasonable idea of how evolution actually works. As the poster before me said, it works between generations, nothing that happens to your body (except what happens to your sperm cells ) has any influence on the evolution of the humans directly.
|
On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
No you are totally wrong, you even do not know the definitions of the terms you are using. Changes in your body die with you, none of those are propagated to another generation. Yes there is a debate about that, but the effects discussed are so small that they have no bearing on this discussion. Basically except your reproductive cells anything that happens to you during your life dies with you. Of course I am talking about evolution now, some things like your works etc. may survive in the culture but that has nothing to do with biological evolution.
|
On November 09 2010 14:52 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote:
I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them Are you slow? Myopia regularly worsens until late teens\early 20's then stops. The glasses did not ruin you. This reminds me chem trails, vaccine-autism, raw-food nonsense, etc
Firstly calm down. Thank you.
Secondly, notice you said late teens. Just fyi, I stop switching glasses when I entered high school. American high school starts at 14.
Thirdly, this is completely different. Perfect vision although cool, isn't that necessary. I'm saying that if perfect vision can only be maintained by destroying my eyesight gradually, no thank you. I'll live with my slightly worse vision.
|
On November 10 2010 03:27 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:23 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet. Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us. "Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring." http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/Lets see what your sources have to say, but given my source all yours could possibly show is disagreement which would mean controversy.
Similar findings to the one in this paper have been discovered in the past and then later refuted. Obviously these recent findings need more study, but you need to note that new research is often misinterpreted. The author himself cautions that there is no direct evidence that the changes were epigenetical. The changes disappeared after a few generations. It is a fairly analogous concept to fetal alcohol syndrome influencing offspring, only slightly extended to include adolescence when the reproductive system is developing.
|
what a fucking shit thread.
I wore lenses 14 years and visual acuity was -9.00 dioptres. I don't even need to look up facts to tell you the glasses aren't the problem. I got my vision corrected and I bet my vision will still degenerate, as it does when people who have poor vision get it corrected.
goddddddddddddddddd
|
On November 10 2010 03:23 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet. Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
I may be wrong but if I recall correctly there is discussion that specific organization of some cellular structures might be passed from mother to offspring and have some effects on said offspring. Basically that there is second information channel except genes, but even if it exists it has such miniscule importance that nothing he said would be accounted for by this mechanism.
|
On November 09 2010 15:06 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now.
I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
But yeah I think that some of these things might be true because if you hit your eye and it becomes a different shape and that makes it worse there should be a way to shape it in a positive way through some of these things.
The trick is you don't have to pay anything, every year your debt becomes smaller until it's something insignificant. I owed thousands of dollars to the hospital now I owe either nothing or a few hundred. Funny thing is that it didn't ruin my credit history and probably didn't even influence it in any major way.
|
On November 10 2010 03:27 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:23 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet. Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us. "Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring." http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/Lets see what your sources have to say, but given my source all yours could possibly show is disagreement which would mean controversy.
Cool thanks for the link, interesting read. The effect still seems too subtle for what you postulated.
|
On November 10 2010 03:39 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 03:34 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals. No one completely understands evolution, but I already posted a source that backs up what I have been saying. Honestly it sounds like you think evolution is magic...how do you think natural selection and genetic drift occur without changes in individuals?
First off, evolution is well understood. Secondly, do you even know what natural selection and genetic drift are? Changes in individuals have no relevance to them. All natural selection says is that organisms that are more reproductively fit will survive to produce progeny. New genes are introduced through recombination and mutation, and these new genes will increase in frequency if they are more reproductively fit. Its not magic, you just don't know anything about evolutionary biology.
Secondly, I'm guessing you randomly googled some stuff and found epigenetics. Yep, your article is talking about genomic imprinting. Most of the research in this field is more focused on cancer and cell differentiation and not transgenerational evolution because it makes cells behave differently. In most cases, genomic imprinting is reset every generation so methylation is removed, histones are reset so whatever happens in one generation isn't passed on. Sometimes this isn't the case (Igf4 and water fleas are most famous for this). The reason why this isn't really "evolution" is because its not passed down to further generations, over time the epigenetic markers are removed. From your own source "In Feig's study, the offspring of enriched mice lost their memory benefits after a few months.". Its an interesting topic, but only affects a limited number of genes and in no way means that we have to redefine evolution.
|
I have -5 on both eyes. You want me to take out my lenzes? :p
I'd be blind then lol
Kinda sad actually :/
|
On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote:On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote:On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
That's...
completely...
wrong.
There is not and never has been evidence of lamarkism, and it's base logic is completely unsound.
|
Evolution has nothing to do with this. Unless it is used in a broader sense of the word, i.e not species-wide darwinian evolution or any variation of it as Treemonkeys has for some reason committed himself to defending, but evolution for its literal meaning, gradual change. Gradual change Can occur on the individual level, whether it's passed on through the genes or not. That is the only relevant use of the word evolution here. The question is whether an individual's eyes change over his/her lifetime according to environmental factors, and whether those factors can be controlled better by means other than corrective lenses.
And i think anyone accusing anyone else of talking out of their ass should prove their own credentials first. If you can contribute some expertese to the discussion that's great but otherwise this is a discussion for laymen, using the powers of basic research and critical thinking to speculatively draw their own conclusions. I don't know why people are so adverse to such a discussion taking place when the alternatives are a) don't have an opinion b) don't take the formation of your own opinion seriously unless you're willing to go all the way and devote at least 2 years to the particular subject. Having an opinion is great, and going acedemic on every subject is simply not pheasible, yet using all the tools of a layman to refine an opinion is always fun, and productive.
|
On November 10 2010 07:51 zobz wrote:
Evolution has nothing to do with this. Unless it is used in a broader sense of the word, i.e not species-wide darwinian evolution or any variation of it as Treemonkeys has for some reason committed himself to defending, but evolution for its literal meaning, gradual change. Gradual change Can occur on the individual level, whether it's passed on through the genes or not. That is the only relevant use of the word evolution here. The question is whether an individual's eyes change over his/her lifetime according to environmental factors, and whether those factors can be controlled better by means other than corrective lenses.
And i think anyone accusing anyone else of talking out of their ass should prove their own credentials first. If you can contribute some expertese to the discussion that's great but otherwise this is a discussion for laymen, using the powers of basic research and critical thinking to speculatively draw their own conclusions. I don't know why people are so adverse to such a discussion taking place when the alternatives are a) don't have an opinion b) don't take the formation of your own opinion seriously unless you're willing to go all the way and devote at least 2 years to the particular subject. Having an opinion is great, and going acedemic on every subject is simply not pheasible, yet using all the tools of a layman to refine an opinion is always fun, and productive.
I'm gonna suggest you read the thread before posting, we are criticizing treemonkey's understanding of the word.
You're saying "well that guy is completely wrong but in theory he could have said something else that isn't" and then you say "you goddamn theorycrafting noobs, stop criticizing him u aren't qualified"
|
normally id say, "you go on right ahead with that and see how it works out for you." when it involves relatively silly pseudoscience like treating myopia with "eye exercises" but then after a while they go and rev up the wackiness when they heard that some dude looked directly at the sun and cured his nearsightedness and then take it seriously. first id think to myself, "ahahaha, ive got to record this for posterity." --but thats just way too mean.
"NO! BAD HUMAN! dont poop on the carpet! no, i mean dont go and belive any new procedure that hasnt been published in any credible medical journal."
|
|
|
I lol'd hard at the first reply
better get your thermiasol h1n1 shots, fox news says mercury is good for your brain
edit: forgot about the aluminum adjuvants! vaccines good vitamins bad!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
