warri0r45

Why shouldn't they take those same measures when dealing with life sentences? To some people a life sentence is worse than a death sentence. With a life sentence you have the change to appeal. Not so when you're dead. I think this brings up an interesting question. I'm aware that the death penalty is generally considered more expensive than life in prison, but does that calculation consider appeals while in prison?

Some people value the truth. Some people want to know what's true, not what's comfortable to believe in. Comfort and security aren't corollaries to truth. Jes, we've tried being nice by explaining our arguments to you. You could have adressed them, but instead you chose to ignore them and insult people. And to Meol, I think your post showed a particularly good summary of the history book vs. Bible argument.

Except there is no proof whatsoever that the vaccination caused that. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Out of interest, I did a little calculation when I heard about that story the other day, and based on the 10 million or so shots used in the US so far and the 10,000 or so people affected by the most common form of dystonia (I think it may have been even more, but I'll use a conservative estimate), you'd expect about 1000 people who got the shot to have dystonia. Enough to make it plausible that this a completely chance event. As for the topic in general, I agree with fastortoise. Just because it hasn't gone through clinical trials, it doesn mean that it was rushed or is unsafe. There would have been QC checks at all stages I'm sure, and you need to remember that there is a similar process every flu season to make a new vaccine againt the regular flu. Having said that, I think the vaccine is probably best for those in at-risk groups. I'm not convinced it's deadly enough to justify whole-population vaccination programs. First of all, it's MRSA, not MERSA. Second, flu vaccinations don't cause antibiotic resistance (wrong on mechanism of action and target organism - I think this is new for me); that wound be over-perscription of antibiotics.

The argument here is that the universe seems to be so fine-tuned to suit our fragile existence that it's mathematically improbable for it to be a bunch of coincidences. We can even use Occam's razor here. Is it more logical to assume that we're living in a super-universe that accidentally has all of the required laws in order for life to exist (even though it doesn't give a damn if we live or die), or is it more logical to assume a designer (someone who probably does care if we live or die) purposely made all these laws in order to let our species thrive? Of course, as always, this just boils down to opinion. If you think about it, though, it's not mathematically improbable, at least it's never been justified as such and there have always been counter arguments such as the mutli-universe theory and the "lottery principle" that I brough up. If you need a refresher, I'm basically arguing that given enough trials (e.g. enough planets), it's not surprising that one should "strike it rich" (e.g. be the habitable zone), even considering how rare striking it rich may be. This can be applied to processes like abiogenesis as well - however rare it may be to develop a protocell from inorganic molecules, considering the number of molecules on different planets all "trying" to become life, it shouldn't be surprising that we're here. As this has been gone over before, I'll keep it short and to the point. 1) The germ theory of disease is a theory. 2) We know that germs cause disease. 3) Hmm... Let's stop and think about that for a second (see Meol's post above - he explains it rather well). As for proof that we're related to chimpanzees, post #253, page 13. There is a reference to page 8 in that post as well. I'd rather not turn this argument into a street directory if that's ok, i.e. lets deal with it here.

It doesn't claim matter came from nothing, no.

You're not being serious, right?

A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't committed. But even then, capital punishment is much more expensive than housing a criminal in prison until they die. This isn't because of the high cost of poison (see: rat poison), but because of the elaborate system that states set up (for perfectly reasonable reasons) to make sure the person being sentenced to death has done what he/she is being prosecuted for. So, economically speaking, capital punishment isn't a very good option. A lot of people admit to crimes they haven't commited to get a lighter sentence. In this case the lighter sentence is death. You could argue some people will see a painless jab in the arm as the easy way out and it's not a good idea to allow this kind of exit, and to be honest I'm quite sympathetic to this view. I'm aware of the economic argument against capital punishment as well. The only good argument against life in prison I could think of is the chance of escape, but that's quite rare (can't remember the figures I saw a while ago - I'll have to do some research again). For the most part you've reminded me why I'm against capital punishment to be honest. Still kind of on the fence though. I'll have to give it some more thought.

I'm flirting with the idea of being pro-capital punishment. If a serial murderer or rapist admits to his crimes, has no remorse and psychological intervention doesn't work, I think capital punishment is a viable option. Criticisms?

What exactly are you reading to make you say that? The modified HIV virus infects a cell, delivering a gene to negate a mutation in the original gene. I thought this was some sort of virus causing the 2 boys' brain disease. I haven't heard of any process that could effectively use one virus (albeit a modified one) to neutralize and destroy another after infection. This basically rewrites an entire chapter in the rule book of infections. Which, if people know anything about medicine, is a pretty big thing. Warren, this message is for you too. ALD isn't a viral disease, it's genetic. You're getting it all wrong. Please, just read the article again. Edit: Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenoleukodystrophy

Bauke, you seem to know what you're talking about. What's your educational background? I'm not questioning your post or anything, I'm just curious.

Thank Louis Pasteur? The process has only been around for over a hundred years. What process is that? I think he is talking about vaccination. Two reasons why I ask: 1) Vaccination would be using one virus the same type of virus, not another. 2) It has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever. I'm struggling to understand how some people can be so far from the subject matter here after there have been two articles posted on it. Allow me to summarise: Scientists have removed critical genes from HIV to make it non-virulent (i.e. it's not going to give you AIDS) They then inserted the same gene that causes adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), but without the incapacitating mutations, into the HIV virus. They're basically looking to repair these mutations to cure ALD. They used the virus to infect blood stem cells in vitro and inserted them back into the patients The blood stem cells that differentiate into myelin-producing cells grow and produce the protein (the ALD protein) that was previously mutated. Myelin is a fatty "cling-wrap" found around nerve cell axons to help send the nerve signal. In ALD, myelin is degraded. The new gene in these cells helps prevent the onset of symptoms assoiated with ALD by helping to maintain myelin. HSCs are blood stem cells.

Thank Louis Pasteur? The process has only been around for over a hundred years. What process is that?

Go an consult a doctor. This isn't a matter for internet forums.

Completely false. There is no limit to the amount of genetic change possible so long as there is a selective advantage to the change. Some examples of genetic changes and their causes are as follows: 1) Point mutations -- due to errors in DNA replication. There is no mechanism to prevent point mutations beyond any threshold, although there are extensive DNA repair mechanisms which keep the rate of point mutations down very low. 2) Chromosome duplications -- due to nondisjunction in meiosis, i.e. due to a failure of chromosomes to separate during cell division. Mostly fatal. 3) Partial chromosome duplications -- due to unequal crossing over during meiosis, i.e. as chromosomes line up during cell division, part of one is transferred to another. Crossing over occurs frequently, and on the odd occasion the process will lead to duplications of whole slabs of chromosomes. Again, there is no inherent barrier to this process (well, the only limiting factor is how much repetitive DNA there is between the chromosomes). This is probably a significant factor in evolution over longer time scales, along with the next example.. 4) Whole genome duplications -- due to a complete failure of meiosis. Leads to extra copies of all chromosomes in the genome. Genetic research suggests that modern wheat underwent multiple genome duplications from it's origins as a grass to its modern day form. The one thing I'm really trying to impress on you here is that there are no inherent mechanisms to prevent genetic change beyond any human-defined point. Sure, there are factors that will dictate the kind of changes that are allowable and shape the direction of evolution, the most notable example being natural selection. The reason fruit flies remained fruit flies in the study you cite (and it would do good to actually cite the study, if you could please) is that it takes a very long time for them to evolve into anything significantly different. There have been studies, however, that show fruit fly speciation in action. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_45 You're never going to get a fruit fly evolving into a beetle, or anything else that drastic. If that's what you expect then you really don't understand evolution.

Part the Second by Maudlin of the Well. So relaxing.. so beautifully put together. What a great band.

First of all, calm down. We're not all being [wagon], we're just simply stating our own opinions on this matter. We are still evolving through subtle mutations or changes throughout generations. Are you sure you understand what evolution is about? I don't know everything about evolution but I do know the jist of it; the monkeys we know today share a common ancestor which we evolved from, which is why the monkeys of today can't evolve into humans now. Okay that sounds kind of confusing, I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about. What does the water cycle being complex have to do anything? It's just a cycle that occurs, it's not complex at all... If you would read my original post you would know that I happen to think that it is too complex to just occur "just because". If it's not complex to you guys, I would love to see you live without it. I'm curious to know why you think something is created because it's complex? The water cycle is complex, but we know it's based on completely natural processes. The problem with your way of thinking is that as we discover more and more, there are less natural occurances that can be or need to be explained by supernatural forces. At one point some very superstitious people thought that thunder was created by the God Thor, but that belief has died out because we know there are completely natural circumstances that lead to the creation of thunder. I can't remember who said it, but they nailed it on the head - your argument, and any other like it, is an argument from incredulity. "I can't understand how this happened, so God must have done it!" As for your belief that we're not related to monkeys, retrotransposons prove you wrong. If you'd like me to explain I can, but I already have in post #144, page 8. If that's not enough info, I've attached a link to a good, straightforward review article on the subject: http://home.comcast.net/~jinchuan.xing/pdf/Xing_etal_YPA_2007.pdf

The lack of reading comprehension here is seriously annoying. The HIV virus is NON-VIRULENT. It's a mechanism to get a gene into a cell. That's all. It doesn't give you AIDS. What exactly are you reading to make you say that? The modified HIV virus infects a cell, delivering a gene to negate a mutation in the original gene.

Thats what vaccines are. Yeah, an incapacitated form of the virus, or just bits and pieces of it. Certainly nothing that could give you the full adverse effects of the disease. Kind of defeats the purpose of vaccines in the first place.

On the issue of the evolution of morality, here's a good background: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l052.html Evolution nicely explains 1 and 2, but 3 is still a bit of a mystery. It could also explain why we see cheaters in such a negative light and punish them for it.

They knocked out the virulent genes of HIV and merely used it as a vector (a trojan horse if you will) to take the gene of interest into myelin-forming stem cells in bone marrow. It's not like they just infected these kids with HIV, you know. (read the article people, please) But as for my thoughts, I think it's great progress. I'm not sure how they ensure this kind of thing doesn't cause cancer, but if it's still a hurdle for gene therapy approaches like this then hopefully it can be corrected somehow. Edit: Here's a better link on the story: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091105143706.htm

Feeding The Abscess by Martyr. So damn good.

Vulgar Display Of Power by Pantera

I think you’re kind of half right. It’s true that for a hypothesis to be scientific, it needs to be testable, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that processes we can’t repeat (historical events) aren’t scientific, or can’t be known with some certainty. Using evolution as an example, we can hypothesise that we ought to find a particular retrotransposon in our DNA at a particular location by virtue of it being there in the chimpanzee genome (the assumption here is that it was inserted in our common ancestor’s genome prior to the radiation of the two species). That’s exactly what we find between the human and chimpanzee genome – many examples of identical retrotransposon insertions despite the astronomical improbability of it turning out that way. The only rational interpretation there is that we share common ancestry. To give another example, we can hypothesise that a particular chimpanzee protein must have an amino acid sequence very similar, if not identical to ours, despite not needing to. Looking at evolutionary relationships more broadly, we can hypothesise that genetic/protein sequence similarity must correlate with morphological similarity, and as a general trend that’s exactly what we find. Hell, even the fact that we continually find other species even have DNA and protein is an implicit confirmation of a widely overlooked hypothesis. Common ancestry would seem to necessitate some common molecular and genetic strategies, and there is no a priori necessity for all lifeforms to be based on DNA, to use proteins and to use pathways like glycolysis to create energy, but that’s what we see ubiquitously in all species. Added, there’s no a priori need for life to be based on only 20 particular amino acids and five bases (including uracil) when there are more chemical possibilities out there. It would only take one species with fundamentally different biology to throw a spanner in the works of evolutionary theory, but we've never found one. As for your example, the very fact that light is referred to as both a wave and a particle by scientists kind of wrecks it – if this example was all just biased opinion and not a measured interpretation based entirely off the data, you would expect to see dogmatic scientists just accepting one or the other based on their own stupid whims. That just not the case in science, for the most part anyway. Any interpretation of the data is likely to be rational and measured, and full of concern that we need more data to make a definitive judgment (something you see a lot of in science).

Not that I have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's been well and truly shown that he's not the second coming of Christ like some though he would be.

But we're finding new fossils all the time and expecting there to be completely unbroken chains of changing species is unrealistic. If the argument is that there are no transitional fossils at all, then it's pretty easy to counter.