It’s more like trying to talk about Muhammad without mentioning religion.
Ah. I see. Not retarded. Crazy.
Thanks. And never mind. (Oh and this post continues to show irrefutable evidence that you still haven’t read the fucking thread.)
No. I was pointing out that I can defend the truth value of statement (Muslims beleive Muhammad is a prophet) even if I didn’t beleive it.
How so? DO spell it out.
Why don’t you track back to the first post that spawned this hijack and see how incorrect your characterization of it is.
Please, get a grip. So it’s not that I’m crazy or retard or didn’t read. I hijacked the thread. Because I totally agree.
Of course this means you cannot thake the challenge and thus want to escape.
I understand. I won’t do it again on this thread.
So . . . you still haven’t read it? You still don’t see that your entire premise is based on a lack of comprehension of the post that started this hijack?
Yes, they certainly don’t eschew modern medicine in favor of, say, prayer or anything.
Win!
Well, from what I understand, he was a tribal leader, kinda like Moses, or Geronimo.
You mentioned the word “prophet”! That’s religious, so you underline my point. Religion was a fundamental part of what he did and why he’s still relevant, so you can’t talk about him while pretending religion doesn’t exist and accomplish much. Just as evolution is such a basic fact of biology that, as said, you basically will be restricted to the washing-test-tubes level of biologically related science if you buy into creationism.
Agreed. Much better that we should surround ourselves with like-minded individuals.
I see what your trying to say. In my view, evolution would be like understanding wudhu. It is an important part of Muslim practice but you will not be iretrievably hampered in your studies.
To say it again. Evolution is a really important part of biology, but ypu can still study 95% of biology and do research and help humans and win Nobel prizes without even using it.
(Afraid of the challenge?)
Lissener: I agree that I hijacked the thread. I also agree that you coudn’t beat my challenge and are running away crying HIJACK!!!
I’ll stop the hijack.
Political power, no, but the New Age anti-vaccine quacks are a serious public health risk.
I’m not sure this is the case. In my view, when people talk about needing to understand and accept evolution, they’re not talking about the whole specific science behind it, but the base concept, the paradigm if you will (my own paraphrase): “Over time, a species will change, usually with a predisposition toward survival.” That’s not the best summation possible, but it’s the best I can come up with. It is the concept that Intelligent Design disagrees with, and it is the concept that successful biological science is based on.
Understanding that concept is what allows people to breed specific types of animals and plants and to breed for certain valued traits within them. It allows people to understand virii and how to combat them. It helped us get a hold on what uses specific body parts are for and thus allowed us to make informed choices on nutrition and medicine.
Hell, if you want to stretch the concept it also provides insight into corporate culture, just as a non-biological example. In a culture that demands and rewards aggressive sales tactics, for example, you’re going to find that the successful employees are aggressive jerks who know how to push a sale. Timid or even merely relaxed, easy-going individuals will be unable to compete. Accepting that this is true is pretty much accepting evolution.
Evolutionary biology is a pretty specific field and you can do good work without ever really touching on it. But the basic concept is what most people are talking about when they say much of science really can’t happen without accepting it. Similarly, you’re not going to get very far in the physical sciences if you don’t accept the basic concept of gravity, that two objects share an attraction. We would not have artificial satellites without that concept.
Wow. That’s not even the point. Obviously I’ve participated in the hijack just as much as you. You still haven’t read the thread.
Not really. Yes, it does mutate, but mutations that result in it becoming less responsive to treatment and therefore more likely to be alive after a treatment has been given, well, that’s natural selection.
I’m a biologist, too, and without accepting the idea of evolution, or at least working within its rules while pretending it doesn’t exist, I can’t do shit. The comparative research we do on spinal cord injury is useless, because without evolution, rat spinal cords have no reason to be a model for human diseases. When I take neural stem cells and use developmental pathways that have been discovered in other species to replicate that development in human-derived cells, I’m using data that could not have been obtained if evolution weren’t true. It pervades nearly everything our lab does, from creating antibiotic resistant transgenic bacteria, to modifying viruses to survive and express the proteins we want in vivo, to the comparative behavioral studies we perform.
Without the basic idea that pathways are conserved because of our common ancestors and that species are related to one another to greater or lesser degrees because of evolution, almost nothing we do makes any sense whatsoever.
The system worked. That’s a good thing.
For what it’s worth, Aji, until you insisted on claiming credit for it, I thought I had started the hijack. So every post you make is further evidence that you haven’t read the thread.
And I’m ignoring your retarded challenge. The evidence that’s relevant to this discussion is objective and established. You can’t discuss the issue based on that, so you create some absurd “challenge” because the actual evidence is against you. Another perfect example of a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific method works. Any experiment to prove or disprove a theory–or, as you call it, a “challenge”–has to be suggested by, and relevant to, the subject at hand. Calling it a challenge and dictating by fiat that my refusal to take it up proves something doesn’t make it probative, or even relevant.
Here’s a challenge for you: if you can stand on your head, and spin yourself around like a top, and sing “Stairway to Heaven” backwards, then I’m wrong and you’re right.
Howbout you take my challenge and I’ll take yours?
Why don’t you provide some sort of cite to your assertion instead? You’re the one making this claim, you prove it. It’s pretty much bullshit to declare that you must be right unless someone else can disprove you in a specific method of your choosing.