Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[RiaX]

why didnt i think of that :O

 

[RiaX]

Lekker. Hopefully you don't have to work with plant extracts .

Plant extracts are very difficult to work with. To get these "medicinal herbs" the sangomas charge more than western medication LOL. Then you gotta pound the hell out of the thing. Then you gotta disolve the plants isoflavanones in a special solvent that you have to purify (I used methanol) and then you got to do chemical fractionation into oil and water based molecules. Pain in the @$$

Though now a days we dont need to do all this lab testing (somewhat sad about it though), we do computational chemistry now. I dont know hippies dislike us testing it on mice with their similar genetic patterns as humans, yet when their mothers, fathers are dying in ICU they turn to science and go "where is the cure?". What a thing if you let me use some stems cells I couldve grown you a new heart.... too bad

 

[buyeye]

Plant extracts are very difficult to work with. To get these "medicinal herbs" the sangomas charge more than western medication LOL. Then you gotta pound the hell out of the thing. Then you gotta disolve the plants isoflavanones in a special solvent that you have to purify (I used methanol) and then you got to do chemical fractionation into oil and water based molecules. Pain in the @$$

Though now a days we dont need to do all this lab testing (somewhat sad about it though), we do computational chemistry now. I dont know hippies dislike us testing it on mice with their similar genetic patterns as humans, yet when their mothers, fathers are dying in ICU they turn to science and go "where is the cure?". What a thing if you let me use some stems cells I couldve grown you a new heart.... too bad

Friend if you are not aware of the ethical implications of harvesting stem cells from feotuses I suggest you have look at how it is done from begining to end.

 

[RiaX]

LOL im aware how its done. When an abortion is done where you think that foetus goes? they go to teach embryology in anatomy labs where they sliced into thin pieces and put in display in a cabinate. I was there I saw the foetus at 3 months 6 months and 9 months (these arent aborted usually stillborn) in jars.

Also you dont need foetal stem cells, adult stem cells are extracted from bone marrow, usually they use the femur as the site. Suggest you do some reading from begining to end , wont grow a brand new heart but we cant say because medicine hasnt had the time to study proper foetal stem cells, and its this cloud of ethics that prohibit it and thats why cellphone technology is progressing at a faster rate than medicine.

Out of all the things I said you pick on a side comment ?!? really

 

[Swa]

Friend if you are not aware of the ethical implications of harvesting stem cells from feotuses I suggest you have look at how it is done from begining to end.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060805123052.htm
Their conclusion is that more research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells. I disagree. Even if the process can be perfected it does not solve the other problems. It would be like knowing how to make the bricks but not having a plan for the house yet. It is also not a desirable solution in terms of rejection. What is needed is to preferably use a patient's own cells and not donor material. Once that is perfected focus can shift to turning them into undifferentiated cells.

On another note our biology teacher had a bottled fetus in her class...

 

[RiaX]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060805123052.htm
Their conclusion is that more research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells. I disagree. Even if the process can be perfected it does not solve the other problems. It would be like knowing how to make the bricks but not having a plan for the house yet. It is also not a desirable solution in terms of rejection. What is needed is to preferably use a patient's own cells and not donor material. Once that is perfected focus can shift to turning them into undifferentiated cells.

On another note our biology teacher had a bottled fetus in her class...

Thats how medicine works, its a principle thats different from other sciences. You cant draw up a blue print before you start like the "house" anology you refering to because its will be denied by ethical commitees. So you got to do the research on stem cells first then apply again later to do what you intended to do.

 

[RiaX]

no philosophical, ethical. The embryo must die to harvest the cells

 

[cyghost]

So. Not a single sound logical and or scientific objection to evolution. And seeing as the only one trying philosophical objections ie "I really really really really really don't want evolution to be a fact" can now post in the philosophical subforum; I think we can try and get back to the OP's request and wait for any of those, actual sound logical and or scientific objections.

 

[Techne]

Actually it was a simple, honest question and instead of giving an answer to promote constructive discussion, you take offence and cry troll.

I asked this because often people have a problem with fetus' or stem cells because of philosophical reasons.

Are there any other reasons people don't like stem cells being harvested?

Instead of trolling further (according to your own definition nogal), you are welcome to send a PM. I would be glad to discuss this if you are really interested and sincere.

 

[antowan]

MOD NOTE: Deleted some posts that went off topic. The thread dictates science and logic be used in the debate. Religion is not allowed to enter the discussion. I am religious myself, but have respect for the idea behind this thread. Start another in an appropriate part of the forum to discuss religious elements to the topic.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

MOD NOTE: Deleted some posts that went off topic. The thread dictates science and logic be used in the debate. Religion is not allowed to enter the discussion. I am religious myself, but have respect for the idea behind this thread. Start another in an appropriate part of the forum to discuss religious elements to the topic.

I agree, but I think this specific thread was asking for this from the get go and would have been better to place such a question in the PD section.

 

[porchrat]

I agree, but I think this specific thread was asking for this from the get go and would have been better to place such a question in the PD section.

Agreed.

Still nice to see the po-po weighing in on the total philosophical clusterfsck that NS has recently become.

Hopefully folks will control themselves now that they have official word to shut the fsck up and start talking science again.

 

[RiaX]

Too bad PD is not a thread we all can post in huh.

instead of moaning why dont you post something interesting?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Too bad PD is not a thread we all can post in huh.

instead of moaning why dont you post something interesting?

Post in Off Topic then.

 

[DJ...]

I agree, but I think this specific thread was asking for this from the get go and would have been better to place such a question in the PD section.

No. Absolutely not. We keep seeing Natural Sciences threads degenerate into an us vs them debate. Now we no longer have to. We have this thread to refer everyone to instead. By having it out in a single thread, we can get some coherent, logical order to the discussion, based on scientific evidence and reasonable logic. Philosophical arguments are neither here nor there, intentionally so, to avoid this turning into a religious debate. We want the science of ID to stand up and make its claims. We want the science of abiogenesis discussed. We want objections to valid theories to be provided. As has been noted, antowan is happy to address wayward posts for the sake of keeping this on topic, so that much we don't have to concern ourselves with any longer...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

No. Absolutely not. We keep seeing Natural Sciences threads degenerate into an us vs them debate. Now we no longer have to. We have this thread to refer everyone to instead. By having it out in a single thread, we can get some coherent, logical order to the discussion, based on scientific evidence and reasonable logic. Philosophical arguments are neither here nor there, intentionally so, to avoid this turning into a religious debate. We want the science of ID to stand up and make its claims. We want the science of abiogenesis discussed. We want objections to valid theories to be provided. As has been noted, antowan is happy to address wayward posts for the sake of keeping this on topic, so that much we don't have to concern ourselves with any longer...

Some fair points, but as much as creationists love calling ID a science, it really is not remotely science as has been shown many times over.

 

[DJ...]

Some fair points, but as much as creationists love calling ID a science, it really is not remotely science as has been shown many times over.

And this is where those arguments can be addressed, as opposed to in every other NS thread. This thread also serves as a beautiful illustration as to the limitations of the objections to evolution...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

And this is where those arguments can be addressed, as opposed to in every other NS thread. This thread also serves as a beautiful illustration as to the limitations of the objections to evolution...

Sorry, I misunderstood your previous post. See what you are saying now, makes sense

 

[unskinnybob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJfqmZ0cuek&feature=BFa&list=WLEB3D4FB31DD25E68

For those foolish enough to still entertain the notion of design, my brother Neil Tyson lays it down.

 

[Techne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJfqmZ0cuek&feature=BFa&list=WLEB3D4FB31DD25E68

For those foolish enough to still entertain the notion of design, my brother Neil Tyson lays it down.

PD claptrap... Captain porchie report.