historical era human evolution firmly documented yet again
Kent Paul Dolan
More evidence has been gathered that evolution
_does_ apply, even to humans, and has been observed
by researchers to have occurred in modern times.
This is a result creationists dread, since the main
impetus for creationism, disputing that humans are
just another kind of ape, falls if evolution in
humans is confirmed.
Gene protects brain-eaters
from mad cow-type disease
Villagers in the highlands of Papua New Guinea
who ritualistically ate human brains but did not
die of a brain disease called kuru have a
genetic mutation that protects them, researchers
said Wednesday.
Their study of the unusual cannibalistic
practice shows evolution in real time in the
human population, and might lead to a treatment
for similar brain-wasting conditions, the
researchers reported in the New England Journal
of Medicine.
Kuru once wiped out entire generations of women
in remote Papuan villages. It was traced to a
now-defunct mortuary ceremony in which women and
children ate the brains of their dead relatives.
Dr Simon Mead of the University College London
Institute and colleagues found that women in
these communities were more likely to live to an
old age if they had the protective gene. Women
without the gene died young of kuru.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5AH5ZY20091118
Watch the creationist worms wriggle for the
amusement of the saner participants here, once
again.
xanthian.
Boikat
> Oh, my, how inconvenient for the creationists.
>
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5AH5ZY20091118
>
> Watch the creationist worms wriggle for the
> amusement of the saner participants here, once
> again.
>
> xanthian.
That's easy. They will simply dismiss it as "But they are still
humans!"
Boikat
All-seeing-I
Humans can build resistance to many diseases.
Did you have a valid point to make?
Or perhaps you just wanted to show the class how you can fall hook-
line-and-sinker for every piece of media garbage printed that attempts
to support evolution?
The most amusing thing is .... these types of stories have an opposite
effect then what is desired. When the average person reads stories
like this they lose confidence in science; not gain it.
You evo-freaks will fall for anything. Like Boikat. Boikat will fall
for anything.
bpuharic
>The most amusing thing is .... these types of stories have an opposite
>effect then what is desired. When the average person reads stories
>like this they lose confidence in science; not gain it.
>
>You evo-freaks will fall for anything. Like Boikat. Boikat will fall
>for anything.
if people are stupid enough to believe in religion like you do they'll
believe anything
>
>
Reddfrogg
A population becoming resistant to a disease over generations is
evolution.
>
> Or perhaps you just wanted to show the class how you can fall hook-
> line-and-sinker for every piece of media garbage printed that attempts
> to support evolution?
Perhaps you want to throw out some more pseudoscience about vitamins,
or plants being 'perfect" nutrients again?
>
> The most amusing thing is .... these types of stories have an opposite
> effect then what is desired. When the average person reads stories
> like this they lose confidence in science; not gain it.
Only if one has some religious bias against science.
> You evo-freaks will fall for anything. Like Boikat. Boikat will fall
> for anything.
He's not the one who fell for "ancient astronauts" claims....
DJT
Boikat
Then how come I don't fall for your bullshit, Mr. Cambrian Mammal =
Trilobite?
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
It could also just be variation for survival; A "learned" immune
response passed on from the parents.
>
> > Or perhaps you just wanted to show the class how you can fall hook-
> > line-and-sinker for every piece of media garbage printed that attempts
> > to support evolution?
>
> Perhaps you want to throw out some more pseudoscience about vitamins,
> or plants being 'perfect" nutrients again?
Don't change the subject please
>
> > The most amusing thing is .... these types of stories have an opposite
> > effect then what is desired. When the average person reads stories
> > like this they lose confidence in science; not gain it.
>
> Only if one has some religious bias against science.
No. The average person knows when they are being coned
>
> > You evo-freaks will fall for anything. Like Boikat. Boikat will fall
> > for anything.
>
> He's not the one who fell for "ancient astronauts" claims....
I never called them "ancient astronauts". You did. Which shows you
cannot distinguish between made up stories and recorded events.
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reddfrogg
snip
> > A population becoming resistant to a disease over generations is
> > evolution.
>
> It could also just be variation for survival; A "learned" immune
> response passed on from the parents.
Lamarckian evolution was discredited long ago. "Learned" traits are
not inheritable.
>
>
>
> > > Or perhaps you just wanted to show the class how you can fall hook-
> > > line-and-sinker for every piece of media garbage printed that attempts
> > > to support evolution?
>
> > Perhaps you want to throw out some more pseudoscience about vitamins,
> > or plants being 'perfect" nutrients again?
>
> Don't change the subject please
I'm not. I'm pointing out your own gullibility here. Glass houses
and stones...
>
>
>
> > > The most amusing thing is .... these types of stories have an opposite
> > > effect then what is desired. When the average person reads stories
> > > like this they lose confidence in science; not gain it.
>
> > Only if one has some religious bias against science.
>
> No. The average person knows when they are being coned
You don't seem to know when you are being conned. Why would you
expect others to know?
>
>
>
> > > You evo-freaks will fall for anything. Like Boikat. Boikat will fall
> > > for anything.
>
> > He's not the one who fell for "ancient astronauts" claims....
>
> I never called them "ancient astronauts". You did.
Which doesn't matter, as it's the same thing.
>Which shows you
> cannot distinguish between made up stories and recorded events.
Actually, I can, which is why I don't accept your ancient astronaut
stories.
DJT
bpuharic
>
>
>response passed on from the parents.
a 'learned' response is not heritable. such is the level of knowledge
one expects from someone who thinks jellyfish are sharks because both
are fish
that's creationism for you.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:he7d3i$fep$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Oh, my, how inconvenient for the creationists.
>
> More evidence has been gathered that evolution
> _does_ apply, even to humans, and has been observed
> by researchers to have occurred in modern times.
>
> This is a result creationists dread, since the main
> impetus for creationism, disputing that humans are
> just another kind of ape, falls if evolution in
> humans is confirmed.
>
> Gene protects brain-eaters
> from mad cow-type disease
>
> Villagers in the highlands of Papua New Guinea
> who ritualistically ate human brains but did not
> die of a brain disease called kuru have a
> genetic mutation that protects them, researchers
> said Wednesday.
>
> Their study of the unusual cannibalistic
> practice shows evolution in real time in the
> human population, and might lead to a treatment
> for similar brain-wasting conditions,
Creationism?
Republicanism?
Religion?
heekster
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 2:15�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>snip
>
>
>> > A population becoming resistant to a disease over generations is
>> > evolution.
>>
>> It could also just be variation for survival; A "learned" immune
>> response passed on from the parents.
>
>Lamarckian evolution was discredited long ago. "Learned" traits are
>not inheritable.
>
Do you know about methylated DNA? The genes do not change, but
methylation or demethylation can turn a gene on or off, and it is
apparently heritable. I saw something on TV where they said that
people who did hard drugs could have an impact on several generations
afterwards, due to this. Like increased risk for infarction or
stroke.
http://www.jbc.org/content/277/40/37741.ful
Hate to agree with adman, but give the devil his due; even a stopped
analog clock is right twice a day.
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:32:17 -0800 (PST), Reddfrogg
> <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 21, 2:15�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >snip
> >
> >
> >> > A population becoming resistant to a disease over generations is
> >> > evolution.
> >>
> >> It could also just be variation for survival; A "learned" immune
> >> response passed on from the parents.
> >
> >Lamarckian evolution was discredited long ago. "Learned" traits are
> >not inheritable.
> >
> Do you know about methylated DNA? The genes do not change, but
> methylation or demethylation can turn a gene on or off, and it is
> apparently heritable. I saw something on TV where they said that
> people who did hard drugs could have an impact on several generations
> afterwards, due to this. Like increased risk for infarction or
> stroke.
> http://www.jbc.org/content/277/40/37741.ful
>
> Hate to agree with adman, but give the devil his due; even a stopped
> analog clock is right twice a day.
Moreover there is evidence that some antibodies are passed through the
placenta and also in the milk, leading the progeny to have an early
immunity before their own system is properly educated.
...
Cory Albrecht
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:32:17 -0800 (PST), Reddfrogg
> <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 21, 2:15 pm, All-Seeing-I<allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>>> A population becoming resistant to a disease over generations is
>>>> evolution.
>>>
>>> It could also just be variation for survival; A "learned" immune
>>> response passed on from the parents.
>>
>> Lamarckian evolution was discredited long ago. "Learned" traits are
>> not inheritable.
>>
> Do you know about methylated DNA? The genes do not change, but
> methylation or demethylation can turn a gene on or off, and it is
> apparently heritable. I saw something on TV where they said that
> people who did hard drugs could have an impact on several generations
> afterwards, due to this. Like increased risk for infarction or
> stroke.
> http://www.jbc.org/content/277/40/37741.ful
That really seems to be essentially just an environmentally caused
mutation, rather than something Lamarckian.
heekster
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>heekster wrote, on 09-11-21 07:47 PM:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:32:17 -0800 (PST), Reddfrogg
>> <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2:15 pm, All-Seeing-I<allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>> A population becoming resistant to a disease over generations is
>>>>> evolution.
>>>>
>>>> It could also just be variation for survival; A "learned" immune
>>>> response passed on from the parents.
>>>
>>> Lamarckian evolution was discredited long ago. "Learned" traits are
>>> not inheritable.
>>>
>> Do you know about methylated DNA? The genes do not change, but
>> methylation or demethylation can turn a gene on or off, and it is
>> apparently heritable. I saw something on TV where they said that
>> people who did hard drugs could have an impact on several generations
>> afterwards, due to this. Like increased risk for infarction or
>> stroke.
>> http://www.jbc.org/content/277/40/37741.ful
>
>That really seems to be essentially just an environmentally caused
>mutation, rather than something Lamarckian.
>
I wasn't talking about Lamarckian, that was Dana. I believe what I
mentioned is called the epigenetic mechanism. Do you see epigenetic
code changes as Lamarckian?
And there is no mutation. Instead, an existing unchanged gene is
turned on or off. The DNA remains the same. And the cold stressed
corn is but one example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136652
Cory Albrecht
No, I know the difference between Lamerckian and epigenetics, and I know
who said what (my newsreader nicely gives different colours to different
quote levels).
However, as one can see you inserted your words right after "Lamaerckian
evolution was discredited long ago", seemingly as if you were trying to
say that what you were describing was an example of Lamarckian evolution.
BTW, you never mentioned the term "epigenetics".
heekster
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's nice. I still did not address the Lamarckian, until you
brought it up.
>However, as one can see you inserted your words right after "Lamaerckian
>evolution was discredited long ago", seemingly as if you were trying to
>say that what you were describing was an example of Lamarckian evolution.
>
Uh, no, you are quite mistaken. If you go back and read it, you will
see that I inserted it after DJT said:
>>>>"Learned" traits are not inheritable.
Seemed like the logical place to put it, since heritability was what I
actually addressed.
>BTW, you never mentioned the term "epigenetics".
>
It was in the link.
It still is.
http://www.jbc.org/content/277/40/37741.ful
Kent Paul Dolan
> The average person knows when they are being coned
xanthian.
First time I've ever had to provide a URL to explain
a Chez Watt. I'm certainly slipping. Watch the
illiterate author again deny that mere idiocy is
chez wattable.
J. J. Lodder
Let's ice-cone him,
Jan
John Wilkins
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Nah. Just section him.
J. J. Lodder
chris thompson
> In article <732hg5tv84glj8p2ds8h8qcn2rglbjc...@4ax.com>, heekster
Immunoglobulin G is passed from mother to fetus across the placenta,
and IgA is present in breast milk. However, these are "passive"
immunity, and do not "teach" the embryo/neonate how to duplicate the
antibody. So it's not really a case of heritable traits, I don't
think.
As an aside, treatments for Lassa fever and rabies are similar:
injection of large quantities of antibodies from others (people in the
case of Lassa; I assume some animal in the case of rabies) previously
exposed to the viruses. But those don't make you immune, either.
Chris