BF2S Forums Enviromental Loonies Got the Blood of Millions on Their Hands

topal63 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Oh, and careful what you call a "theory."  I called evolution a "theory" and pollux's panties got all in a bunch.  Yes, it's a theory, just like evolution, and both are "virtually" proven in their own respect.  It's to the extent you study it properly that you will find the proof you need to know without doubt that it's real or not.

Evolution is a FACT and a theory. It is both... it has happened, happens, and will happen this is a FACT, it is not a matter of belief. Abiogenesis, how and why mutations happen in DNA, how RNA was replaced with DNA early-on, etc and the like. . . these involve theoreticals, but as a basic premise evolution is a FACT of nature.

This (above) is a rather mundane point. . . oh, and yes fancy has it out for you...

You're wrong.  Evolution never happened.  Not sure what planet you're on dude, but it ain't this one.  This one started in the garden of eden with two wonderful people.  Just ask anyone in this forum, they'll tell you!

Just remember that DDT was harmful to humans as well. Peace out.

Indeed, Paul Mueller received the 1948 Nobel Peace prize for his discovery of DDT's ability to kill insects.  However, it is well established that DDT (as all chlorinated hydrocarbons) is a persistent chemical.  It does not break down with water, but does dissolve in oils and fats.  For this reason, it accumulates in the food chain. 

There is no question that in the short term DDT saves lives through the suppression of disease carrying mosquitoes (malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever and west nile (which I have personally had)).  The long term effects of this class of chemical cannot be so easily dismissed, however.   It does accumulate in fatty tissues and gets concentrated as it moves up the food chain.  We are at the top of the food chain and eventually the impact would be felt by humans.  At that point, however, it would be pervasive in the environment and we don't have a remedy for it.

On a sidebar issue, evolution.  Evolution is a theory only.  Adaptation is a fact.  To prove scientifically, a theory must be observable and repeatable.  Evolution is neither of these.  There are many, many changes that can be observed in the human genome and they are usually fatal and to my knowlede always deterimental.  Even with miniscule changes such as microdeletion in the 15th chromosome (Prader-Willy Syndrome) or more substantial changes such as trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome), the outcome is not good.  To compound this, both a male and female would need to experience the same mutation, find each other and mate for it to pass to the next generation.  Finally, if we look at the mapping of the chimpanzee genome (the closest relative to humans),  a recent study found mre than 98 percent of the DNA on chimp chromosome 22 is present on human chromosome 21.  There are 68,000 stretches of DNA difference between human and chimpanzee genomes.  We know that one microdeletion causes severe problems.  No one can explain how an entire genetic code migrated to a different chromosome to create a new species.  This is the problem with evolution.  Before anyone flames me as a religious nut, I am agnostic and received my degree in biology.  I just question the theory.

PHPR Hunter wrote:

Indeed, Paul Mueller received the 1948 Nobel Peace prize for his discovery of DDT's ability to kill insects.  However, it is well established that DDT (as all chlorinated hydrocarbons) is a persistent chemical.  It does not break down with water, but does dissolve in oils and fats.  For this reason, it accumulates in the food chain. 

There is no question that in the short term DDT saves lives through the suppression of disease carrying mosquitoes (malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever and west nile (which I have personally had)).  The long term effects of this class of chemical cannot be so easily dismissed, however.   It does accumulate in fatty tissues and gets concentrated as it moves up the food chain.  We are at the top of the food chain and eventually the impact would be felt by humans.  At that point, however, it would be pervasive in the environment and we don't have a remedy for it.

On a sidebar issue, evolution.  Evolution is a theory only.  Adaptation is a fact.  To prove scientifically, a theory must be observable and repeatable.  Evolution is neither of these.  There are many, many changes that can be observed in the human genome and they are usually fatal and to my knowlede always deterimental.  Even with miniscule changes such as microdeletion in the 15th chromosome (Prader-Willy Syndrome) or more substantial changes such as trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome), the outcome is not good.  To compound this, both a male and female would need to experience the same mutation, find each other and mate for it to pass to the next generation.  Finally, if we look at the mapping of the chimpanzee genome (the closest relative to humans),  a recent study found mre than 98 percent of the DNA on chimp chromosome 22 is present on human chromosome 21.  There are 68,000 stretches of DNA difference between human and chimpanzee genomes.  We know that one microdeletion causes severe problems.  No one can explain how an entire genetic code migrated to a different chromosome to create a new species.  This is the problem with evolution.  Before anyone flames me as a religious nut, I am agnostic and received my degree in biology.  I just question the theory.

Off-topic, but, could there possibly be cell-to-cell instead of person-to-person genetic mutation? E.g. small differences between cells? Microdeletions and alterances wouldn't affect the whole body if the damage is restricted to a single cell, but a beneficial mutation could possibly be able to get past... (now into hypothesis mode)