Why don't Republican officials accept science? 3 examples..

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
It's not as simple as that. Many times a patient won't gain immune memory from a single shot or previous infection. Eg, pertussis or mild case of chicken pox the immune memory wears off. Antibody(proteins) diminish over time, if immune memory wears off.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
As for your question about mutation and adaptation. A virus is a much simpler "organism" than animals. Variation is kept dormant in animals,while it's essentially a different organism in a virus.The mechanism remains the same but the strain(species)changes
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
vestigial tails, webbed toes, the appendix, canine teeth, the prostate, and the lack of a penile bone.

evolution may not be FACT but its pretty real. so real it fucks up pretty often.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Doc,
Vestigiality is a myth. The coccyx is a point where all your muscles come together and provides support for the spinal columnm. Without would be painful to sit.The canines are used to tear hard fibrous plant tissue.Appendix lymphatic immune response.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
everybody gots a coccyx, not everybody has a branchgrabber
35 cases of actual vestigial tails since 1885. and thats from the national institutes for health. uncommon? definately, , rare? sure why not. mythical? not a chance. some tail swingers even have conscious muscular control over their rump fanner.

i use my canine teeth the same way as chimps baboons and wolves. on meat.

the appendix has been pretty much proved to be a vestigial organ. people who have them removed die from disease at the same rates as those who still have them. (with the exception of those who die from appendicitis...)

also, wheres my penile bone?

i miss my penile bone.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Evolution purports itself to be fact.Nothing is fact except the past. That's arrogant,just as much as a bible thumper claiming 9k year old Earth.Both are a belief.One may be better and the best we got.So that makes it a lie.No matter how small the chance.
There is a basic difference between the edifice of evolution and any religious myth. Each and every scientific theory is branded "Disprove me; I dare you. If you can - you win." No other ideology has that built-in disclaimer. In fact, the religious and political ideologies I have encountered tend toward the opposite: "If you even think of disbelieving me, I will be very disappointed and will have no choice but to report you to the bosses for a shunning or worse."
You misrepresent evolution when you try to saddle it with the ills of scientism. Scientism is a real phenomenon, but is independent of evolutionary theory, to that theory's fortune. cn
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
"Some very simple animals have nothing more than light sensitive spots, that enable them to tell the difference between light and dark. But if a patch of such spots formed in even the shallowest of pits, one edge of the pit would throw a shadow and so reveal the direction of light. If the pit got deeper and started to close, then light would form a blurred image. Mucous secreted by the cells would bend the light and focus it. If this mucus hardened it would form a proper lens and transmit a brighter and clearer image.
All these different fully functional stages at different levels of complexity are found in living animals today. Some single-celled creatures have one of those light-sensitive spots. Flatworms have a small pit containing light spots, so they can detect the shadow of a predator. A snail’s blurry vision is good enough to enable it to find its way to food. And the octopus has an eye with a proper lens and can see as much detail as we can. So the structure of the human eye does not demand the assistance of a supernatural designer. It can have evolved gradually, with each stage bringing a real advantage - as Darwin’s theory demands." - Evolutionist

"God did it" - Creationist


"Neck hair… Other mammals’ hair rises in response to “hair-raising experiences” as a defense. It’s a warning sign of aggression, and may make the animal look bigger and fiercer. We’ve apparently given up that signal, maybe in favor of words or other body language. About the only trace left is that creepy feeling about nape of the neck and scalp, which is almost impossible for others to see. " - Evolutionist

"God did it" - Creationist

"Goosebumps... were obviously “created” to erect and “fluff up” the hair or fur on a hairy or furry mammal ancestor, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. Since most of us nowadays have so little body hair as to render it useless for insulation purposes, goosebumps are another vestigial reaction whose tool (fur) is no longer with us." - Evolutionist

"God did it" - Creationist

"Male nipples...the simple biological-evolutionary answer is that as embryos we are all structurally female first, including proto-breast tissue. Only later in fetal development do the male hormones kick in and modify the feminine genital structures into the masculine. But we men are left with useless breast tissue and nipples, which never get the hormonal signal at puberty to develop into functioning organs." - Evolutionist

"God did it" - Creationist

'Blind animals…and other cave critters still have vestigial but absolutely useless eyes. Eyes are unnecessary in darkness." - Evolutionist

"God did it" - Creationist
 

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman

Well-Known Member
Outcome Based Education was a hot buzzword in the 80's, it was in fact NOT a well rounded liberal arts education for the students, it was "teaching to the test" with rote memorization of "facts" like:

the civil war was all about slavery. end of subject.
the US government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to the native americans on the reservations.
theodore roosevelt and the rough riders took san juan hill
"marijuana" is deadly poison, and a highly addictive drug.
6 million jews died in the holocaust.
the US is a democracy

and lots more, all of which are factually incorrect, yet still taught to this day. last year i helped my nephew with his summer schoolwork while he stayed with me over the summer, and his coursework was LAUGHABLE.

heres a little sample: this is the exact question and the multiple choice answers as offered on his final exam:

Question 16
The text of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's speech, where he declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is an example of:

A: a primary source
B: a secondary source
C: a biliography
D: an appendix

the correct answer is B, a secondary source. ORLY????????????
the entire course of study was laden with incorrect assertions like that, and it was lauded as one of the best online self study programs in america. they even misquoted shakespear plays and langston hughes poems.

the texas school board may have laid out their opposition in a buffleheaded and inarticulate manner, but OBE, HOTS and all the new hotness in education reform are all flawed at their core. they teach agendas, memorization and blind acceptance of the assertions of the coursework. they call themselves "critical thinking education" but they are not.

for fuck's sake one part of the course had him watching zit cream commercials with justin bieber to gain insight into "Critical Media Consumption" which was the actual title of that section, yet it did not offer any assistance in critical thinking or questioning the assertions of the "media" he was instructed to "consume" it merely helped him see that justin bieber sold a shitload of zit cream, and after the section was complete, i asked him what he learned from this portion of his course, he answered "justin bieber is a fag" so i guess he learned something in spite of it all.

the texas school board is sadly RIGHT, just for the wrong reasons. education SHOULD challenge beliefs, and as a result it MUST undermine the unswerving faith a child should have in his parents when he is young, in favour of understanding and logic. OBE and HOTS do NOT do that they simply replace mommy and daddy's "because i said so" with the school curriculum's "because i said so". and thats why they suck.
you must've been homeschooled.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
i contemplated ignoring your snide inarticulate and ineffective jab, but then i decided to respond to say:

this does not even warrant a response.

also you smell like cabbage.
Something tells me you're holding "and your father smells of elderberries" in reserve. cn
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Something tells me you're holding "and your father smells of elderberries" in reserve. cn
shh shh shh!! let not slip the schnoodles of war too soon mez ami! let this filthy american pigdog believe my rhetorical sac is empty, then i shall unleash hellfire and brimstone upon them!

soon my pet, soon.
 

Total Head

Well-Known Member
sorry if this was brought up (i got a headache after the first 100 posts or so), but validity of the theory of evolution aside, the original question begs an answer. it's one thing to think evolution is an invalid theory, it's quite another to call it "lies from the pit of hell". it suggests that there is a demonic boogyman with an agenda and not a long-established field of legitimate scientific study. boogyman politics are what's wrong with this country, and the devout are some of the biggest suckers because they come "pre-brainwashed", often from backgrounds where questioning religious principles (like creationism) is extremely taboo.

i'm not saying that everyone who denies the validity of evolution is religious or has religious motivations, i'm just pointing out how dangerous it is to advance this denial by way of religious (not scientific) literature. people who refuse to crack a science book because it's "lies from the pit of hell" shouldn't be in charge of making policies for anyone. it conjures images of that crazy wife swap lady who blew a gasket because her new family was "DARRKK SIDEDDD AAAUUUUGGHHH!!"

people who openly flaunt their lack of objectiveness have no place in government. it's not about evolution, it's about biases and objectivity.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
By actvating certain epigenes you can grow teeth in a chicken. The same with a white rose on a pink rose plant. This is called the epigenome. Real tails in humans is the same. It's not vestigiality. It's what's used called throwback and those "junk dna."
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
By actvating certain epigenes you can grow teeth in a chicken. The same with a white rose on a pink rose plant. This is called the epigenome. Real tails in humans is the same. It's not vestigiality. It's what's used called throwback and those "junk dna."
By altering DNA you could pretty much do what you want to right? It simply seems like a database of options.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
NL,
Yep. That shows evidence a "programmer" like a alien race could've left those "library routines" in the "database" that can be activated by "dynamic routine calls."
 
Top