halogirl

actually i'm pretty sure that it can, just because it doesn't show in the second and third generation, i'm reasonably certain, that it remains a part of the genotype, and can potentially reappear in say a great grandchild. (of course i could potentially be totally wrong about that)

cant you just get your GED? also think about this, you say your more interested in science then others and you learn about it easier, so i'll bet you stick out alot among people, you hang out with older people, right? i might have it totally wrong, and you might fit in just fine in college, but just think about it. even your friends who are older then you you don't really fit in with right? imagine how hard it'll be to hang out with people who are much older and more mature then you. who've had more experience, and are actually almost adults while your still young and slightly immature, don't take it personally there are just things your age group don't understand yet, and i'm not talking about reproduction, but think about that too, it'll be hard to find a partner who doesn't think your a little kid, and you'll miss out on the experience of growing up in highschool and seeing your friends mature as well, it's just so akward to hang out with adults all the time, so it's really wierd to not have an option, and if your just a freshman it'll be hard to get a job until your old enough, how will you pay for it? seriously consider getting your GED or take duell-enrollment classes, it pays off a little bit, and you don't have to miss out on the early dating experience.

I understand, and I also know where you're coming from. Just to be clear, though, there is no objective line between right and wrong, good and evil. All we have are our subjective and personal interpretations.

 

I personally would not be alive today were it not for medical knowledge obtained through tests with animals, so I am both biased and grateful to the little beings who were involved, and these animals will always have my gratitude and support. I just ask that we be realistic and understand that complex issues like this have many shades of gray, and these shades warrant open discussion and responsible understanding.

you are of course right, it does depend on perception, like i said it is necessary, and i am glad that you are alive, i was merely stating that i feel it is morally wrong to intrude on another being in that fashion, if that being is unwilling.

We eat them, too. Just because they are involved in work which has a great deal of efficacy does not mean we are being "cruel."

 

In my mind, cruelty is putting a cat into a microwave. Cruelty comes in many forms, but the responsible tests done in the name of science does not fit those criteria.

 

To Sayonara's point, this has been repeated numerous times in this thread, shown and supported ad infinitum to the blinded ideological eyes of those who wish to exaggerate the issue and misrepresent its truth.

it's true we do eat them, because that is how we evolved, however we might not be using the exaggerated techniques that generally come to mind, but we are using another being against their will. i'm not saying it isn't necessary, but it is still wrong.

Urrrggg... we have been around this so many times in this thread.

 

You can't just unilaterally label all testing as "cruel", if in reality it is not. Deliberate torture of animals is cruel, but this is not necessarily the same thing as animal testing. You need to have a comprehensive understanding of animal testing before coming to any conclusions, and the retina-burning images most people see (dogs with wires protruding from an exposed skull, etc) are not in the least bit representative of how lab animals are treated.

how is it not cruel, you are using animals, other living beings, to our own end, not theirs. i actually do understand alot of what happens along those lines as i wrote an unbiased, 12 page report on the subject.

honestly, although doctors will probably be allowed to switch out with someone due to their discrimination, but if you think about it, its just plain rude. when they became doctors they decided to spend their lives helping people. if they decided not to help a homosexual based on their own beliefs, then their going against their purpose, also last time i checked, their religeons said that they personally could not be attracted to the same sex, none of them said that they would be damned for helping a homosexual. in fact if thier religeons are correct wouldn't that make them the better person for being a decent human being, rather then (using christianity as an example) trying to do god's job. seriously it really is just an attempt to push one's beliefs on another person, people do this in hopes of convincing that person that they are in the wrong, not to help them.

it pays to be decent to others, especially if you're a doctor.

i agree with sayonara, there is a difference between discipline and abuse. my parents did resort to spanking every now and then(when i was being a real twerp) but the important thing to remember is where and how often. hitting a child in public is cruel and stupid, hitting a child multiple times for an offense is a bad idea, and hitting a child anywhere aside from the rump, is definitely abuse, just being spanked is humiliating, i'll bet everyone remembers how upsetting it is, it didn't even hurt so it really isn't necessary to hit a kid very hard. it really is just plain cruel and abusive to do that over nothing, i feel it is really important to make sure you try everything else before resorting to that. and seriously it should only be done when they've done something that is definitely wrong and that they definitely knew was wrong. spanking a kid for stealing is probably reasonable, but hitting the kid more then once, or really hard, or on some other part of the body is abusive.

animal testing for beauty products is totally wrong, but for diseases...i'm not sure. it is cruel, but it may be necessary, like for AIDs reasearch.

(F) (15) It is the woman's choice. its sad when it happens but it might be a necessary evil sometimes. and honestly i'm not sure that males have a say in it most of the time.

i think its a little better though because now in new mexico they can be used for stem cell research. if the abortion is necessary at least we're still giving them a chance to help people.

exactly!

to: dichotomy

Why is there a need for a deity?

i think alot of people want there to be a deity, because they don't like the idea that we control our actions.

what people really want is an excuse to undermine other people, and the thought of being responsible for our actions scares people. thus we want someone to blame, not only that but evolution hurts peoples feelings of superiority to others, because its saying that we just happened here by chance, and are thus unimportant in the universe.

i agree, its pointless to think that we are all important creatures, that the earth was made for us, its resources for us and only us to use.

uh, yeah, except the part about surrogate mothers, we have succeeded in producin a test tube baby, which would prevent trauma, but that was kind of why i said serious repercussions.

cloning is totally different,and honestly it seems like a seriously bad idea to me. i mean we're all supposed to have our own unique mix of genes, this can be done with genetic engineering, but i think cloning can have many more serious repercussions.

But that's not all ID is content to suggest. It *is* possible that a "greater entity" which is unobservable (by any means we know of) used the physical laws (no omnipotence, please) and the process of evolution to populate Earth with its current biodiversity over billions of years. Possible, but not probable.

 

ID says evolution and the observation and experimentation that makes it one of the most sound theories available is flawed. ID is an attempt to teach religion in public school science classes. THAT is why you are being annoyed with all these objections over Intelligent Design, not because there can be no "greater entity".

i think you have me confused, i was annoyed the arguments that say that it can be only one or the other. honestly i do believe only in evolution, but too many people claim that a greater entity simply placed us here.

also if there were a greater entity why shouldn't it be probable that it used evolution as an effective way to develop useful organisms.?

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

I can complain about someone's views if these views are based off of fallacious logic, and simple ignorance about the subject.

 

He was being pejorative and sarcastic about humans preventing bacteria from evolving. Even if was being sarcastic in a humorous way, it still served to demonstrate the fact that he was attacking evolution, while being naive about how it actually works.

 

I can attack that condescending approach all day... and will do so.

if you say so, though honestly i didn't pick that up from his reply, even if it was a sucky analogy.

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that the level of mutations are causing new species to arise on human bodies? Is there any evidence for this process? Also, if we look far enough back in the evolutionary tree, I think we may find a common ancestor cell but not necessarily a bacterium. Interesting points though...

why shouldn't there be any evidence. with all the gunk people put in their bodies, of course the bacteria inside us are changing. they need to adapt to survive, and for bacteria, that means growing, and multiplying, but only those that are built correctly survive, thus it may eventually change into an entirely new bacterium. why shouldn't it,? especially if it is compatible with our bodies.

also as far as evolution goes, if you look back far enough, you will always find a common ancestor of some sort.

to: ecoli

im pretty sure Pioneer was just trying to make a point. you can't really complain about someone's veiws on something if you don't know them. i also didn't see anything in their post that suggested they thought evolution was morally wrong, they just didn't consider that we are in symbiosis with bacteria inside us, they don't just serve us, we'd die without them and they without us. i don't really see what your complaining about though.

you know we still havn't seen any mathmatical evidence that supports intelligent design and i would really like to.

to: everyone on the last page

i was trying to quote from the original poster Carolalyn, but my computer was acting up.

if you read further into my post you would see that i do not support intelligent design, and i was also suspicious of this so called,"mathmatical evidence" so stop attacking me on it.

Explain this then:

 

The basic premise of ID is that life is we know it is too complex to have occurred naturally, that it must have been designed. Now, if you assume this is true it has a serious circular implication. If we are too complex to have occurred naturally then so is our designer. Even more so than us because our designer must be even more complex than we are to understand everything that went into our design that we don't even understand. This kind of implies that our designer's designer must have been even more complex than our designer and so on ad infinitum. That said, where did the first designer come from? Even our own designer? They certainly couldn't have occurred naturally, that would mean that ID fails its own basic premise.

i was quoting the person who had originally posted that stuff, read further into my post and you'll find my reply.

Forget the rainforest... we're finding new bacterial species on our own bodies!

 

 

i know , i was just trying to make a point, do you think the bacteria in our bodies, are perhaps evolving? that could be why we find so many new types of bacteria, like all the time.

quoted from: carolalyn

"While i already understand that intelligent design theory has not been able to produce lab results, I also know that mathematics is a very real thing, and Intelligent Design theory definitly has the mathmatical evidence.

On the topic of Evolution, I do not know if man came from apes or not, it seems likely but the fact is that the australopithecines have never been proven to be any more than ape. We have never found evidence of that ancestor the theory proposes we had. Also there has been much evidence that humans have appeared on the earth much earlier than previous expected. "

I do respect your opinion on this, though honestly i havn't really seen mathmatical evidence that supports intelligent design, also i think you're confused on one part; with the theory of evolution, we don't beleive we came from apes, the reason that we've found evidence that humans have been here a while, is because both we and apes came from a similar ancestor, we've simply branched off in a different evolutionary direction then they have.

also assuming the theory of evolution is correct, then humans have been here since the beginning, we've simply changed form since then, into more useful and adaptable creatures.

yes, its sad but wouldn't it be better to give terminally ill patients a choice? rather then suffering through a drawn out half-life, they could get all their things in order and then enjoy a few last luxeries, then go to sleep. like in soylent green.

you know it seems to me that no matter what we come up with to cure problems in humans, there is always another new thing that pops up and stumps us for an exceptional length of time. although i like the support learning about illnesses and disorders, and curing them, could this be mother nature inducing a form of population control?

you know i'm pretty darn sure that bacteria are continually changing, this is how we develop different type of bacteria,and seriously there are billions of different types of bacteria, we don't know them all,not only that but completely new species of animals are found everyday in the rain forest, couldn't this be that they have developed into something more useful, and we simply didn't notice until they became big enough?

trace any animals ancestry back far enough and you will find a bacterial common ancestor, so technically bacteria has continually changed, we're just seeing the branch that didn't completely change or find compatibility with one another, enough to develop another organism.

I think that may be the big danger of genetic engineering - losing genetic diversity. Of course, natural selection can do the same thing, but all the variables of nature are taken into account, not just a few by man. In short, it would be hard to make a man that is more fit for nature than natural selection - do we know all the variables?

 

I think promoting genetic diversity is the way to go. Try to fight certain diseases, etc. But even a disease like sickle cell has advantages in certain environments, so it is hard to predict all the ramifications. Be humble and tread softly.

i think you misunderstood me. i meant that the way humans are today, mixing with one another, would we lose genetic diversity.

personally i think genetic engineering could prevent this.