Author Topic: Stella, support your claims  (Read 5131 times)

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Stella, support your claims
« on: June 17, 2008, 06:35:11 AM »
You're always nice, so it's not a pleasant task to have to tell you this. I'm making a separate thread in order not to take your "Darwinist" thread off-topic.

If you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion (which you started), you really shouldn't be making such ridiculous claims as

I hate hearing/seeing about that too.  But I believe that stuff is the result of sin entering the world.  There was no shedding of blood before Adam and Eve sinned.  The inference is that all creatures were initially plant-eaters.



I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have evidence for this claim.

Please provide your evidence that some point in the past, currently carnivorous animals were herbivorous.

For instance, lions and other large cats are completely unsuited to plant-eating. Their sharp teeth, digestive systems, etc can't handle anything but meat. A lion with all the plants in the world and no meat would starve.

What evidence do you have that at some point in the past (before this "fall"), lions were capable of living off plants?

Hint: Quoting "Genesis" doesn't count.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2008, 07:06:30 AM »
You're always nice, so it's not a pleasant task to have to tell you this. I'm making a separate thread in order not to take your "Darwinist" thread off-topic.

If you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion (which you started), you really shouldn't be making such ridiculous claims as

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have evidence for this claim.

Please provide your evidence that some point in the past, currently carnivorous animals were herbivorous.

For instance, lions and other large cats are completely unsuited to plant-eating. Their sharp teeth, digestive systems, etc can't handle anything but meat. A lion with all the plants in the world and no meat would starve.

What evidence do you have that at some point in the past (before this "fall"), lions were capable of living off plants?

Hint: Quoting "Genesis" doesn't count.
I'm basing my belief on the bible.....so if I can't quote it I guess the thread ends? :(


You may find this story interesting:

http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm

Vegetarian Lioness: Little Tyke

At four years old, the mature African lioness weighed 352 pounds. Her body stretched 10 feet 4 inches long and could run 40 miles per hour. Her skull, highly adapted to killing and eating prey, possessed short powerful jaws. Normally, African lions eat gnus, zebras, gazelles, impalas, and giraffes. This particular big cat, in her prime and perfect health, chose a more gentle way of life, vegetarian!

A Violent Birth
Georges and Margaret Westbeau, standing outside the thick steel bars of the cage, watched nervously. Inside, a vicious, raging beast baring razor claws and glistening fangs, roared. Flinging herself at the couple, who watched from barely three feet away, her suffering amber eyes defied their presence.

Always, in the past, this lioness destroyed her offspring as soon as they were born. Four times in the last seven years, her powerful jaws had crushed her newborn cubs, furiously throwing them against her cage's bars where they tumbled, lifeless.

Denying the normal instincts of motherhood, what possessed this lioness? Her life mocked its former freedom. She lived a caged animal, taken from the wild and tortured by those who captured her. Did she feel that by destroying her cubs they would be spared the humiliation that she endured?

Suddenly, the newborn cub came flying towards the people anxiously watching. Georges quickly grabbed the cub through the bars before it could be killed. Its right front leg dangled helplessly from its mother's brutal jaws. In the face of such fury the only thing the human could say was, 'You poor little tike'.

The Westbeaus took the three-pound 'Little Tyke' to their Hidden Valley Ranch near Seattle and there it joined the menagerie of other animals including horses, cattle, and chickens. Curious peacocks lined the housetop, kittens peered through a picket fence, and two terriers danced with joy for the new addition to the household.

Drinking bottles of warm milk, Little Tyke began the long road to recovery.

Mysterious reaction
With the advice of experts the Westbeaus began weaning Little Tyke onto solid food at three months. Leaving only a favorite doll, they removed most of her rubber toys, replacing them with bones from freshly slaughtered beef. They carried the small cub to the bones. Unexpectedly, she violently threw up!

Experts told them in no uncertain terms that lions couldn't live without meat. In the wild, lions ate only flesh - eleven pounds a day for an adult female. Alarmed at Little Tyke's strange behavior, they wondered at how they could introduce meat into her diet? In the meantime, they continued feeding Little Tyke baby cereal mixed with milk.

A well meaning friend suggested mixing beef blood with milk, in increasing proportions. Given milk containing ten drops of blood, Little Tyke would have nothing to do with it. They mixed in five drops of blood, and hid that bottle. As she sucked on the plain milk they quickly switched bottles. Again she refused it. In desperation they added one drop of blood to a full bottle of milk, but Little Tyke refused this bottle as well, and they could only stare in amazement.
Another friend suggested putting plain milk in one hand, and milk mixed with hamburger in the palm of the other hand. Little Tyke readily licked the milk from one hand, but when Georges changed hands, she immediately turned away. Sensing her distress, Georges wiped his hands on a nearby towel and picked her up. Hissing in fear and cringing away, she looked sick from the danger-smell of meat on his hand. She only settled down when given a fresh bottle of milk held in washed hands.

Thousand-dollar reward
At nine months old and weighing sixty-five pounds, Little Tyke had the splints and bandages on her leg taken off for the last time. She slowly learned to depend on the healed leg, and mingled with other animals on the ranch.

Since the ranch didn't earn enough income to make ends meet, the Westbeaus ran a small cold storage plant in town. Little Tyke came with them when they went to work and word got around about this vegetarian lioness. When she was four years old, the Westbeaus advertised a thousand dollar reward for anyone who could devise a method tricking Little Tyke into eating meat. Numerous plans met with failure since Little Tyke refused to have anything to do with flesh.

The answer
The caretakers of this gentle animal sought out animal experts, always asking them about diet. Finally, one young visitor set their mind at ease. With serious eyes he turned to them and asked, 'Don't you read your Bible? Read Genisis 1:30, and you will get your answer.' At his first opportunity Georges read in astonishment, 'And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.' At that point, after four years, the Westbeaus finally stopped worrying.

Little Tyke's meals
A typical meal consisted of various grains, chosen for their protein, calcium, fats, and roughage. Margaret always cooked a few days' supply ahead of time. At feeding time, a double handful of the cooked grains along with one-half gallon of milk with two eggs, supplied Little Tyke a delicious meal. She had one condition before eating. Her favorite rubber doll had to be right next to her!
 
Little Tyke with Becky
For teeth and gums, the Westbeaus supplied rubber boots, since she refused bones. They attracted her to the boots by sprinkling them with perfume. One boot lasted almost a month.
Little Tyke had many close animal friends. Her favorites were Pinky (a kitten), Imp (another kitten), Becky (a lamb) and Baby (a fawn). Her favorite and closest friend, however, was Becky, who preferred Little Tyke's company to any of the other animals.

National publicity
You Asked For It, the popular television show hosted by Art Baker, once featured Little Tyke. The producers wanted a scene with chickens, which didn't bother Georges since Little Tyke roamed easily among chickens at Hidden Valley Ranch. When the film crew brought the chickens in, they turned out to be four little day-old chicks!

Slurp of the tongue
Little Tyke's only previous experience with new chicks had been with a hen and her chicks who had wandered onto the lawns around their home on the ranch. Georges thought nothing of it until he saw Little Tyke acting peculiarly, slinking into the house, and looking guilty with lips tightly closed over obviously open jaws. He called 'Tyke! What have you got?' Instantly her mouth opened and a little chick popped out, unharmed. Flapping it's little down-covered wings, it almost flew back to its upset mother. Apparently Little Tyke had affectionately licked the tiny chick, as she was prone to do when, with one huge slurp of the tongue, the little chick had popped into her mouth, and she hadn't known how to fondle it further!
With the amazed camera crew filming, Little Tyke strode over to the chicks, hesitated long enough to lick the chicks carefully and gently with the very tip of her tongue, and moved away with a yawn. A moment later she came back to lie down among the chicks. They immediately made their way into the long silky hair at the base of her great neck where they peered out from the shelter of their great protector.
Another scene saw a new kitten, after an introduction, walk over to Little Tyke's huge foreleg and sit down. Little Tyke crooked one paw around the tiny creature and cuddled it closer.
In front of cameras, Art Baker picked up the Bible and read: 'The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.'
Mail poured into the producers, making this episode one of the most popular in the show's history.

Little Tyke's death
Unfortunately, while spending three weeks in Hollywood for the show, Little Tyke contracted virus pneumonia, a disease that took her life a few weeks later. The sudden change in climate may have been a contributing factor. She succumbed quietly in her sleep, retiring early after watching television.

Inspiring to this day
Her life is over, but her teachings live on. Of the many lessons she taught, not the least is that love removes fear and savagery. Little Tyke reflected the love and care shown to her after the first few moments of her precarious birth.
Thousands saw photographs of her lying with her lamb friend, Becky, inspiring many to see the world a fresh way: two such diverse natures enjoying each other's love! One eminent attorney kept a huge enlargement of this photograph in his office, and pointed to it as he counciled couples on the verge of divorce.

Scientific dilemma
Science is at a loss when it comes to Little Tyke. Felines are the strictest of carnivores. Without flesh she should have developed blindness, as well as dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a degenerative disease that turns heart muscles flabby and limits their ability to pump blood. This is because her diet didn't contain an adequate source of the amino acid, taurine.
Little known in the 1950's, subsequent research at UC Davis in 1976 proved that taurine is an essential nutrient for felines, the lack of which would cause degeneration of the retina. later research implicated inadequate taurine levels in dilated cardiomyopathy as well. For cats with DCM, if the disease has not progressed too far, administering taurine causes an almost miraculous recovery. Formerly, cats lived only a few days to weeks after diagnose.
Taurine is non-existent in natural non-animal sources. It is present in minute amounts in milk and eggs. Little Tyke could have gotten her taurine requirement from milk, if she drank 500 gallons per day, or from eggs, if she ate more than 4000 per day. How did Little Tyke get taurine?

Challenge
Perhaps even more important, why did Little Tyke disown her species' instincts? Little Tyke is a curiosity to the public, aberation to zoologists, anomaly to scientists, and an inspiration to idealists.

Little Tyke wasn't alone. A photograph taken at Allahabad, India in 1936 shows another awesome lioness.
In Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda wrote:
...Our group left the peaceful hermitage to greet a near-by swami, Krishnananda, a handsome monk with rosy cheeks and impressive shoulders. Reclining near him was a tame lioness. Succumbing to the monk's spiritual charm - not, I am sure, to his powerful physique! - the jungle animal refuses all meat in favor of rice and milk. The swami has taught the tawny-haired beast to utter "Aum" in a deep, attractive growl - a cat devotee!
These vegetarian lionesses are lion lights. By example, these luminaries invite us as well to discover a less violent world, turning away from slaughterhouses that fed our dogs and cats prior to this age of enlightenment.

The article is from the book "Vegetarian Cats & Dogs" by James A. Peden.
There's also a book about Little Tyke, titled "Little Tyke" by Georges Westbeau available from the Theosophical Society in England, Phone (800) 669 9425.


R

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2008, 07:07:40 AM »
You're always nice, so it's not a pleasant task to have to tell you this. I'm making a separate thread in order not to take your "Darwinist" thread off-topic.

If you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion (which you started), you really shouldn't be making such ridiculous claims as

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have evidence for this claim.

Please provide your evidence that some point in the past, currently carnivorous animals were herbivorous.

For instance, lions and other large cats are completely unsuited to plant-eating. Their sharp teeth, digestive systems, etc can't handle anything but meat. A lion with all the plants in the world and no meat would starve.

What evidence do you have that at some point in the past (before this "fall"), lions were capable of living off plants?

Hint: Quoting "Genesis" doesn't count.

The Flood changed everything... ;D
I hate the State.

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2008, 07:09:52 AM »
Quote
I'm basing my belief on the bible

But you are making a scientific claim. A very tenuous, dubious one at that!

If it's true that all carnivores were at some point in the past herbivores, where's the evidence?

If you put that claim to someone from India (who doesn't believe in the Bible), and they laugh at you and say "where's the evidence?", what would you say?

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2008, 07:21:18 AM »
But you are making a scientific claim. A very tenuous, dubious one at that!

If it's true that all carnivores were at some point in the past herbivores, where's the evidence?

If you put that claim to someone from India (who doesn't believe in the Bible), and they laugh at you and say "where's the evidence?", what would you say?
I would say that is what I believe to be true.  I don't have any empirical evidence to show them. 

Can you see how some people can also think that Darwinists don't have empirical evidence to show that all living creatures came from a common ancestor?  But you believe it to be true also.
R

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2008, 07:23:28 AM »
I would say that is what I believe to be true.  I don't have any empirical evidence to show them. 

Can you see how some people can also think that Darwinists don't have empirical evidence to show that all living creatures came from a common ancestor?  But you believe it to be true also.

But Darwinists DO have empirical evidence; its called DNA.
I hate the State.

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2008, 07:23:57 AM »
I would say that is what I believe to be true.  I don't have any empirical evidence to show them. 

And if the Indian told you they believed the entire world rested on the back of a giant turtle, and they believed it because it says so in their "holy" book, what would you think of them?

Quote
Can you see how some people can also think that Darwinists don't have empirical evidence to show that all living creatures came from a common ancestor?  But you believe it to be true also.

FALSE. Anyone who claims that there isn't empirical evidence for common descent is lying, or uneducated. Read a science book some time, Stella. It won't kill you ::)

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2008, 07:28:13 AM »
But Darwinists DO have empirical evidence; its called DNA.
What makes you believe that DNA was not designed by a Creator?
R

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2008, 07:30:42 AM »
What makes you believe that DNA was not designed by a Creator?

EVEN IF IT WERE, it would be subject to random mutation and natural selection. Hence, evolution still holds.

Evolution holds true, whether you believe in gods or not, whether you believe in the Christian God or the Muslim God or Zeus or Baal or Thor...

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2008, 07:32:21 AM »
And if the Indian told you they believed the entire world rested on the back of a giant turtle, and they believed it because it says so in their "holy" book, what would you think of them?

Well I don't think I'd laugh at them.  I would probably ask them why they believe their "holy" book is true.



FALSE. Anyone who claims that there isn't empirical evidence for common descent is lying, or uneducated. Read a science book some time, Stella. It won't kill you ::)


em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

empirical
Adjective
derived from experiment, experience, and observation rather than from theory or logic: there is no empirical data to support this claim [Greek empeirikos practised]



Maybe we are having a miscommunication re: "empirical."


R

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2008, 07:34:47 AM »
What makes you believe that DNA was not designed by a Creator?

Because if your deity designed DNA, he was huge fuck up of an engineer. Mutation is random and usually harmful and it's only the good, useful mutations that pass the test and get passed on (with the set of DNA instructions). For every useful/good mutation there are thousands that are harmful/useless or both. Lactose intolerance, sickle cell anaemia, cancer, lack of enamel on your teeth and so on.

You are really asking me why I don't believe in Intelligent Design? Well, basically because I observe stupid/poor design all around me. If this is the work of a god, then that god failed shop class with an F-!
I hate the State.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2008, 07:37:30 AM »
Well I don't think I'd laugh at them.  I would probably ask them why they believe their "holy" book is true.


em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

empirical
Adjective
derived from experiment, experience, and observation rather than from theory or logic: there is no empirical data to support this claim [Greek empeirikos practised]



Maybe we are having a miscommunication re: "empirical."




How is citing the Bible making use of empirical evidence?
I hate the State.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2008, 07:41:44 AM »
Because if your deity designed DNA, he was huge fuck up of an engineer. Mutation is random and usually harmful and it's only the good, useful mutations that pass the test and get passed on (with the set of DNA instructions). For every useful/good mutation there are thousands that are harmful/useless or both. Lactose intolerance, sickle cell anaemia, cancer, lack of enamel on your teeth and so on.

You are really asking me why I don't believe in Intelligent Design? Well, basically because I observe stupid/poor design all around me. If this is the work of a god, then that god failed shop class with an F-!
See, I believe harmful mutations are a result of sin entering the world and not an initial part of God's design.



You are really asking me why I don't believe in Intelligent Design? Well, basically because I observe stupid/poor design all around me. If this is the work of a god, then that god failed shop class with an F-!

Others have said things like this and I find it very interesting! 

Deicide, what do you think of the design of the human body?  How would you have done it differently? 

R

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2008, 07:43:14 AM »
Well I don't think I'd laugh at them.  I would probably ask them why they believe their "holy" book is true.


Evading the point, yes you are. In the absence of evidence, their "holy" book is just as believable as yours.

You claim that all carnivores were, at one point in the past, herbivores. When asked for evidence for this entirely scientific and non-religious claim, you retreat behind the "I believe it because the Bible says it" excuse.

Well that doesn't cut it any more.

The evidence shows that your claim is false. Producing an article about one allegedly plant-eating lion doesn't cut it, esp. when it comes from the "Theosophical Society" ::)

So either you provide real evidence that all carnivores were once herbivores, or consider yourself self-pwnd.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2008, 07:45:48 AM »
How is citing the Bible making use of empirical evidence?
??? 

R

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2008, 07:48:33 AM »
See, I believe harmful mutations are a result of sin entering the world and not an initial part of God's design.

I'm sorry, stella, but

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2008, 07:49:27 AM »
See, I believe harmful mutations are a result of sin entering the world and not an initial part of God's design.

Others have said things like this and I find it very interesting! 

Deicide, what do you think of the design of the human body?  How would you have done it differently? 



Sin? I don't know where to begin. Needless to say one can't get very far in this type of discussion with a fundamentalist Christian.

The human body? Poor design.

We piss and ejaculate out of the same hole; our shithole is located right next to our pleasurehole. We constantly have to eat and drink(Crododilians only need to eat once a month or so); we eat and breathe out of the same hole (ensuring that some percentage of us will choke to death every year; dolphins have separate breathing and eating holes. We could run on photosynthesis, which would be MUCH more efficient. We could be much stronger; we are some of the weakest animals. We are stuck with useless organs (appendix; there you have Stupid Design)...etc, etc, etc....the list goes on...
I hate the State.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2008, 07:52:50 AM »
Evading the point, yes you are. In the absence of evidence, their "holy" book is just as believable as yours.

You claim that all carnivores were, at one point in the past, herbivores. When asked for evidence for this entirely scientific and non-religious claim, you retreat behind the "I believe it because the Bible says it" excuse.

Well that doesn't cut it any more.

The evidence shows that your claim is false. Producing an article about one allegedly plant-eating lion doesn't cut it, esp. when it comes from the "Theosophical Society" ::)

So either you provide real evidence that all carnivores were once herbivores, or consider yourself self-pwnd.
LOL oh no don't let me be self-pwned! ;D

Here is what I said...I said "I believe it" I didn't say I have empirical scientific evidence regarding this just as you don't have empirical scientific evidence that all living creatures came from a common ancestor.

"But I believe that stuff is the result of sin entering the world.  There was no shedding of blood before Adam and Eve sinned.  The inference is that all creatures were initially plant-eaters."


Maybe it would have helped if the 2nd sentence would have been part of the first and connected by an "and."  I didn't mean to confuse you.


R

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2008, 07:56:08 AM »
you don't have empirical scientific evidence that all living creatures came from a common ancestor.


Are you kidding?  ???

I have posted TONS of threads with various links to evidence, but you and the other science-haters conveniently ignore them, because you're afraid they might shake your belief in invisible friends. So I gave up.

In fact, I am thinking of starting a "BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM" thread for you just like I did for our resident genius OneTimeHard, where I collect your most precious gems of scientific ignorance.

Not least of which is "lions used to eat plants before the fall" and "harmful mutations are a result of sin"...

Do you realize you would be laughed at if you said this to people at a dinner party?

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2008, 07:59:08 AM »
We are stuck with useless organs (appendix; there you have Stupid Design)...




Scientists: Appendix may help protect good germs
By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.

For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous. Doctors figured it had no function, surgeons removed them routinely, and people live fine without them.

And when infected the appendix can turn deadly. It gets inflamed quickly and some people die if it isn't removed in time. Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food.

But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

The appendix "acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. Its location - just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac - helps support the theory, he said.

Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.

In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.

He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system.

Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC.

Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions.

The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."

The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: "I'll bet eventually we'll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils."



Sin? I don't know where to begin. Needless to say one can't get very far in this type of discussion with a fundamentalist Christian.

The human body? Poor design.

We piss and ejaculate out of the same hole; our shithole is located right next to our pleasurehole. We constantly have to eat and drink(Crododilians only need to eat once a month or so); we eat and breathe out of the same hole (ensuring that some percentage of us will choke to death every year; dolphins have separate breathing and eating holes. We could run on photosynthesis, which would be MUCH more efficient. We could be much stronger; we are some of the weakest animals. We are stuck with useless organs (appendix; there you have Stupid Design)...etc, etc, etc....the list goes on...

Interesting stuff!


So how would you design the body? 
R

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2008, 08:03:37 AM »
Are you kidding?  ???

I have posted TONS of threads with various links to evidence, but you and the other science-haters conveniently ignore them, because you're afraid they might shake your belief in invisible friends. So I gave up.

In fact, I am thinking of starting a "BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM" thread for you just like I did for our resident genius OneTimeHard, where I collect your most precious gems of scientific ignorance.

Not least of which is "lions used to eat plants before the fall" and "harmful mutations are a result of sin"...

Do you realize you would be laughed at if you said this to people at a dinner party?

The Flood changed everything... ;D
I hate the State.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2008, 08:03:50 AM »
Are you kidding?  ???

I have posted TONS of threads with various links to evidence, but you and the other science-haters conveniently ignore them, because you're afraid they might shake your belief in invisible friends. So I gave up.

In fact, I am thinking of starting a "BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM" thread for you just like I did for our resident genius OneTimeHard, where I collect your most precious gems of scientific ignorance.

Not least of which is "lions used to eat plants before the fall" and "harmful mutations are a result of sin"...

Do you realize you would be laughed at if you said this to people at a dinner party?
Depends on the dinner party ;D

Are you getting angry coldude ???   

It's OK, we are just having a discussion. :)


You know, there are people that believe that certain things are true and also things that are untrue.  Sometimes people are correct and sometimes they are not.  Sometimes we change our minds just as Deicide used to be into Astrology and later rejected it.  Hopefully people didn't get angry about it. 





Are you kidding?  ???

I have posted TONS of threads with various links to evidence, but you and the other science-haters conveniently ignore them, because you're afraid they might shake your belief in invisible friends. So I gave up.


Please link me as I may have missed them inadvertently.
R

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2008, 08:04:44 AM »



Scientists: Appendix may help protect good germs
By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.

For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous. Doctors figured it had no function, surgeons removed them routinely, and people live fine without them.

And when infected the appendix can turn deadly. It gets inflamed quickly and some people die if it isn't removed in time. Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food.

But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

The appendix "acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. Its location - just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac - helps support the theory, he said.

Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.

That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.

In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.

He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system.

Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC.

Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions.

The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."

The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: "I'll bet eventually we'll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils."



Interesting stuff!


So how would you design the body? 

I already mentioned some things. The best thing would be to run on photosynthesis.
I hate the State.

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19325
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2008, 08:06:06 AM »
I already mentioned some things. The best thing would be to run on photosynthesis.
Yes OK.  But what about things like arms/legs/fingers/"holes" etc.
R

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Stella, support your claims
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2008, 08:06:28 AM »
Depends on the dinner party ;D

Are you getting angry coldude ???   

No, I just feel embarrassed for you. It's sad that you were deprived of an education. It really is.




Quote
Please link me as I may have missed them inadvertently.

GEEE... If only there were something called "Google" or "Yahoo" where you could type "evolution evidence" and have information come to your computer. HMMMMM maybe if we pray hard enough.....