Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[Northern Dominus]

See, here's the problem with that assessment. It isn't scientific. It assumes that humans are the evolutionary "end-game" in "God's creation", what with the Abrahamic religions human-centered dogma. There is no reason to assume this. There is no reason to assume that God made this world specifically to evolve us. Perhaps we are not the endgame in his creation. Perhaps cockroaches are the endgame and everything else is merely byproducts. Evolution is not compatible with Abrahamic religious dogma, which is why it is opposed so vehmently. Sure, we can pretend it is compatible for the sake of apologetics, but that does not change the facts of the matter.

You know, you can always rely on the assumption that God wanted humans to become the dominant species on the planet.

Really, and under what assumption besides biblical can we base that on?

[Keronians]

You know, you can always rely on the assumption that God wanted humans to become the dominant species on the planet.

Can you prove that?

No. I was merely suggesting a viewpoint.

Whether or not it is compatible with the Abrahamic God is largely irrelevant to me.

[Keronians]

You know, you can always rely on the assumption that God wanted humans to become the dominant species on the planet.

Really, and under what assumption besides biblical can we base that on?

None. It would be their own belief that the seemingly random process was, in fact, not so random.

[Holy Brittanian Empire]

OP is trolling with great majesty! Troll on!

[Ardchoille]

OP is trolling with great majesty! Troll on!

Please argue the post, not the poster. Direct your comments to the topic itself. Check out the Rules for more info.

[Helcasia]

Of course! Even more in Christian schools! See, Evolution (I'm an Atheist btw) does not contradict God. It may take the concept of God outside the concept of the Bible, but the idea that a God can create and start the evolutionary process should be sound Christians as plausible and acceptable. I, myself, reject the concept of God, but I don't see how Christians, Muslims and Jews should have a problem with the idea of Evolution. It only corresponds with the notion, for them, that God is great and all-mighty.

See, here's the problem with that assessment. It isn't scientific. It assumes that humans are the evolutionary "end-game" in "God's creation", what with the Abrahamic religions human-centered dogma. There is no reason to assume this. There is no reason to assume that God made this world specifically to evolve us. Perhaps we are not the endgame in his creation. Perhaps cockroaches are the endgame and everything else is merely byproducts. Evolution is not compatible with Abrahamic religious dogma, which is why it is opposed so vehmently. Sure, we can pretend it is compatible for the sake of apologetics, but that does not change the facts of the matter.

Skeptics Annotated Bible:

God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11

[Sociobiology]

With people you aren't married to and mostly among gays. Or junkies.
It only matters how most transmissions happen, not that they don't happen in other ways. They have to, that's the point, everyone pays the price.

But this is derailing. The point is, creation is a much more fitting explanation for HIV than evolution. If one was to create a virus to remind humanity of its sins, it's hard to imagine a better one. To think that evolution on its own came up with precisely that... sure, just how it randomly came up with humans.

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV, that's way around 15% (Don't remember the exact amount) of the Anglo-Saxon population is immune to it

this map

[The Realm of God]

1: What does morale have to do with it?
2: No, it isn't.
3: No, it isn't. You don't have to be an atheist to accept the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection as the best available explanation for how the process of evolution works.
4: No, they don't.

1. Morale has everything to do with it, the same way as we should teach all sides of the World Wars.
2 and 3 I think I have answered them enough, most of my other posts have my opinion
4. You may not have to be Athiest, but that doesnot make it an Athiest belief, such as you do not have to be Baptist to beleive in Jesus Christ rising, but it is still a Baptist Religous Belief.

You don't know what Morale is do you. This demoralises me. RUN!

[Farnhamia]

With people you aren't married to and mostly among gays. Or junkies.
It only matters how most transmissions happen, not that they don't happen in other ways. They have to, that's the point, everyone pays the price.

But this is derailing. The point is, creation is a much more fitting explanation for HIV than evolution. If one was to create a virus to remind humanity of its sins, it's hard to imagine a better one. To think that evolution on its own came up with precisely that... sure, just how it randomly came up with humans.

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV, that's way around 15% (Don't remember the exact amount) of the Anglo-Saxon population is immune to it

Y. pestis is not at all similar to HIV. The plague is caused by bacteria; HIV is a virus. Y. pestis just kills you. HIV kills your immune system and then something else kills you. And source for some percentage of "the Anglo-Saxo population" being immune to HIV (I assume that's what you meant)?

[The Realm of God]

You really don't know what you're talking abot do you. Evolution is science. Therefore it should be taught. Its a well-proven theory, which isn't really even a theory. There are no superhuman powers involved. Atheism is not a religion. It is the belief that there AREN'T any superhuman powers involved in the creation or development of life.

that evolution b.s is not true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D1JXqKdkrs&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWuzuXpZxmA&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9h68pxXRC8&feature=plcp watch these videos

All fundie channals, great unbiased sources

Ever heard of the fossel record.

[Desperate Measures]

that evolution b.s is not true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D1JXqKdkrs&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWuzuXpZxmA&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9h68pxXRC8&feature=plcp watch these videos

All fundie channals, great unbiased sources

Ever heard of the fossel record.

There is no such thing as support for Creationism that isn't fundie. Far as I've seen. Might be some alien ones out there.

[The Realm of God]

Where have we insulted Christians?

saying creationism is stupid and calling there belief crap is insulting

No there is no evidence for creationism. There is the fossel record and rapidly evolving bacteria that debunk it.

[Sociobiology]

[citation needed]

Condoms are effective at preventing HIV, apart from in the extremely rare case that they split.

Or if you don't wear them apparently. Which I wasn't quite clear on. I thought they just had to be in the general vicinity of where I thought an STD or a pregnancy may happen.

fortunately condoms are far more idiot and impulse proof than abstinence which is why their failure rate 14.5% is much so much lower than abstinence's 25.3%, even though abstinence has a much lower theoretical failure rate.
I I say I am using condoms but have sex without them that counts against condoms failure rate, If you say you are using abstinence but have sex, that counts against abstinence failure rate.
combine condoms and the pile and the failure rate is even smaller for pregnancy.

[Vault 1]

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV

The alternate theoretical me that believes in science is also very interested in the answer to Farnhamia's question.

Unless you subscribe to the viral theory of Black Death, they aren't just on the same page, they aren't even on the same bookshelf.

[Not a pipe]

Of course! Even more in Christian schools! See, Evolution (I'm an Atheist btw) does not contradict God. It may take the concept of God outside the concept of the Bible, but the idea that a God can create and start the evolutionary process should be sound Christians as plausible and acceptable. I, myself, reject the concept of God, but I don't see how Christians, Muslims and Jews should have a problem with the idea of Evolution. It only corresponds with the notion, for them, that God is great and all-mighty.

See, here's the problem with that assessment. It isn't scientific. It assumes that humans are the evolutionary "end-game" in "God's creation", what with the Abrahamic religions human-centered dogma. There is no reason to assume this. There is no reason to assume that God made this world specifically to evolve us. Perhaps we are not the endgame in his creation. Perhaps cockroaches are the endgame and everything else is merely byproducts. Evolution is not compatible with Abrahamic religious dogma, which is why it is opposed so vehmently. Sure, we can pretend it is compatible for the sake of apologetics, but that does not change the facts of the matter.

It is correct that there is no good reason to assume that, and the other things you say are also possibilities (or they could all be wrong), but just because you do not assume it does not necessarily mean it is not true. It is not completely incompatible (although that depend on some other assumptions too)

By "Abrahamic religious dogma" do you mean what is written in Bible literally? God lets the Earth "bring forth" the plants and so on.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

With people you aren't married to and mostly among gays. Or junkies.
It only matters how most transmissions happen, not that they don't happen in other ways. They have to, that's the point, everyone pays the price.

But this is derailing. The point is, creation is a much more fitting explanation for HIV than evolution. If one was to create a virus to remind humanity of its sins, it's hard to imagine a better one. To think that evolution on its own came up with precisely that... sure, just how it randomly came up with humans.

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV, that's way around 15% (Don't remember the exact amount) of the Anglo-Saxon population is immune to it

Bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. HIV/AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

How are they similar?

saying creationism is stupid and calling there belief crap is insulting

No there is no evidence for creationism. There is the fossel record and rapidly evolving bacteria that debunk it.

Thank you. We've all been telling him, and he won't listen, but the more the merrier.

[Sociobiology]

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV, that's way around 15% (Don't remember the exact amount) of the Anglo-Saxon population is immune to it

Bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. HIV/AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

How are they similar?

both use the C-C chemokine receptor type 5, on white blood cells to infect those cells, It is the main way they spread.

[Sociobiology]

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV

The alternate theoretical me that believes in science is also very interested in the answer to Farnhamia's question.

Unless you subscribe to the viral theory of Black Death, they aren't just on the same page, they aren't even on the same bookshelf.

their method of infection is very similar, both use this same receptor to enter host cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. HIV/AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

How are they similar?

both use the C-C chemokine receptor type 5, on white blood cells to infect those cells, It is the main way they spread.

Touché.

[Sociobiology]

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV, that's way around 15% (Don't remember the exact amount) of the Anglo-Saxon population is immune to it

Y. pestis is not at all similar to HIV. The plague is caused by bacteria; HIV is a virus. Y. pestis just kills you. HIV kills your immune system and then something else kills you. And source for some percentage of "the Anglo-Saxo population" being immune to HIV (I assume that's what you meant)?

C-C chemokine receptor type 5
CCR5 delta 32 mutation

not immune, resistant

[url]http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2003/02140/Effects_of_CCR5__DELTA_32_and_CCR2_64I_alleles_on.12.aspx
[/url]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325234239.htm

http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/2001/08150/Homozygous_and_Heterozygous_CCR5__DELTA_32.9.aspx

[The Realm of God]

Bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. HIV/AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

How are they similar?

both use the C-C chemokine receptor type 5, on white blood cells to infect those cells, It is the main way they spread.

Wait, viruses latch on to cells and duplicate their genetic code into the nucleas. Couldn't we just replace the viral code with something beneign?

This however might be a stupid idea as all experements using synthetic viruses have been failures, too unstable. The virus may well evolve and begin to become dangerous again.

Worth thinking about though.

[Sociobiology]

both use the C-C chemokine receptor type 5, on white blood cells to infect those cells, It is the main way they spread.

Wait, viruses latch on to cells and duplicate their genetic code into the nucleas. Couldn't we just replace the viral code with something beneign?

This however might be a stupid idea as all experements using synthetic viruses have been failures, too unstable. The virus may well evolve and begin to become dangerous again.

Worth thinking about though.

synthetic viruses are used in gene therapy successfully, however DNA viruses are the only ones stable enough, HIV is RNA virus and far to prone to mutation. so far gene therapy is only at the individual human trial stage.

[Farnhamia]

The alternate theoretical me that believes in science is also very interested in the answer to Farnhamia's question.

Unless you subscribe to the viral theory of Black Death, they aren't just on the same page, they aren't even on the same bookshelf.

their method of infection is very similar, both use this same receptor to enter host cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Funny, there's no mention of that in the Wiki article on Y. pestis. In the article you linked on CCCR5, the section on the Delta32 variant says:

CCR5-Δ32 (or CCR5-D32 or CCR5 delta 32) is a genetic variant of CCR5.[9][10]

CCR5-Δ32 is a deletion mutation of a gene that has a specific impact on the function of T cells.[11]At least one copy of CCR5-Δ32 is found in about 10% of people of Northern Europe and in those of Northern European descent. It has been hypothesized that this allele was favored by natural selection during the Black Death. This coalescence date is contradicted by purported evidence of CCR5-Δ32 in Bronze Age samples, at levels comparable to the modern European population.[12] Smallpox may be another candidate for the high level of the mutation in the European population.[9]

The allele has a negative effect upon T cell function, but appears to protect against smallpox and HIV. Yersinia pestis (the bubonic plague bacterium) was demonstrated in the laboratory not to associate with CCR5. Individuals with the Δ32 allele of CCR5 are healthy, suggesting that CCR5 is largely dispensable. However, CCR5 apparently plays a role in mediating resistance to West Nile virus infection in humans, as CCR5-Δ32 individuals have shown to be disproportionately at higher risk of West Nile virus in studies,[13] indicating that not all of the functions of CCR5 may be compensated by other receptors.

The only mention of plague in the entire article is a negative one for your argument (I underlined the sentence above). I don't necessarily disbelieve you but that source doesn't support your argument.

[The Realm of God]

Wait, viruses latch on to cells and duplicate their genetic code into the nucleas. Couldn't we just replace the viral code with something beneign?

This however might be a stupid idea as all experements using synthetic viruses have been failures, too unstable. The virus may well evolve and begin to become dangerous again.

Worth thinking about though.

synthetic viruses are used in gene therapy successfully, however DNA viruses are the only ones stable enough, HIV is RNA virus and far to prone to mutation. so far gene therapy is only at the individual human trial stage.

It's used in the treatment of Cystic Fibrosis, but the patiant has to frequently repeat treatment for it to be effective, research needs to focus on making the treatment longer lasting.

The virus seems to die when the treated cells die. The new cells which regenerate seem to do so without the virus.

[Big Jim P]

I hate to break it to you, but The Bubonic Plauge, that thing that killed lots of people, is very similar to HIV, that's way around 15% (Don't remember the exact amount) of the Anglo-Saxon population is immune to it

Bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. HIV/AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

How are they similar?

No there is no evidence for creationism. There is the fossel record and rapidly evolving bacteria that debunk it.

Thank you. We've all been telling him, and he won't listen, but the more the merrier.

I am surprised we all haven't been called out by a Mod for dog-piling actually.