Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > >
> > >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> > >>
> > >>>Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Jeff wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> > >>>>>>news:425EF094.8647BF66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Jeff wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> > >>>>>>>>news:425EA876.68EF4951@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>[...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Your arguement is like saying that jaguars couldn't have
developed
> > >>>>>>>>>>speed
> > >>>>>>>>>>through evolution because the slower jaguars would died
because they
> > >>>>>>>>>>couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other
animals.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>No. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) can
explain how
> > >>>>>>>>>jaguars
> > >>>>>>>>>have become fast creatures. Where natural selection fails
is when it
> > >>>>>>>>>tries to explain the existence of slow and seemingly
stupid creatures.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Examples, please.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>(1) Slugs
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>1: Slugs don't hunt. So they don't have to be fast in order to
get their
> > >>>>prey. They don't have to be very intelligent either, because it
does not
> > >>>>require much brain to find the nearest eadible plant in
comparison to
> > >>>>hunt other animals.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>2: They don't taste very well
> > >>>
> > >>>And how do you know this?
> > >>
> > >>This is common knowledge among biologists.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some people love the taste of escargot while others do not.
> > >
> >
> > The escargots usually eaten are not slugs. Even the French are not
known
> > for eating slugs.
>
> "Many things eat slugs. Many birds, fish, and small mammals would
love a
> slimey slug feast. They are one of the favorite foods of
gartersnakes."
>
> Source: http://velvetdragon.com/cyberslugs/realslugs.html
>
> > >>>And how does its predators know this **before** killing it?
> > >>
> > >>Jeff has already answered this.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Not in a satisfactory manner. I've seen ants attack and kill a
slug.
> > > They don't seem to mind the taste of the slug.
> >
> > I didn't say they don't have enemies at all.
>
> "Many things eat slugs. Many birds, fish, and small mammals would
love a
> slimey slug feast. They are one of the favorite foods of
gartersnakes."
>
> Source: http://velvetdragon.com/cyberslugs/realslugs.html
>
> > >>>>and therefore don't have many enemies,
> > >>>>meaning they don't have to be fast in order to escape them.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>However, being fast would still confer a survival advantage.
Why has
> > >>>this selection not taken place ?
> > >>
> > >>As Jeff has already explained, being fast has a price.
> > >
> > >
> > > Other bugs seem to manage without difficulty.
> >
> > Other bugs have different stategies of survival.
>
> Nevertheless, they are faster.
>
> > >>If there is no
> > >>significant advantage of being faster, the costs are easily
higher than
> > >>the benefit and there is selection _against_ getting any faster.
> > >
> > >
> > > I accidently stepped on a slug yesterday. It would seem that
speed
> > > would have conferred a significant survival advantage to that
slug that
> > > would have been worth any cost. Just imagine the countless
number of
> > > slugs that have died because they were unable to move fast enough
to get
> > > out of the way of larger creatures.
> >
> > Humans were not around when slugs evolved.
>
> Correct because there was no evolution.
>
> > In the natural habitat of
> > slugs the chance that some larger creature steps on them is not
very big.
>
> "Many things eat slugs. Many birds, fish, and small mammals would
love a
> slimey slug feast. They are one of the favorite foods of
gartersnakes."
>
> Source: http://velvetdragon.com/cyberslugs/realslugs.html
>
> > >>In the case of slugs it should be noted that there are certain
> > >>constraints imposed by there morphology. To make them
considerably
> > >>faster would require extensive rearrangement of their morphology.
And
> > >>such massive changes don't happen very often.
> > >
> > >
> > > Evidently you have not had the experience of mowing grass in a
yard. If
> > > you had, you would have witnessed countless different kinds of
little
> > > insects who are fast enough to avoid being chopped up by the lawn
> > > mower... except for the slugs.
> >
> > Insects have a quite different morphology than slugs. For example
they
> > usually have legs and/or wings, both of which make speed a lot
easier.
> >
> > Btw, in climates favorable for slugs, the tend so be a serious
problem
> > for people with gardens because they eat the plants. Mowing the
lawn
> > isn't known to help to get rid of the slugs. So it seems slugs are
quite
> > successful in spite of their slowness.
> >
> > >>>>3: They have a slow metabolism and therefore don't need much
food. This
> > >>>>is an advantage of being slow. Their brain does not need much
food
> > >>>>either. An advantage of lacking a large brain.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>There really is no survival advantage to being either slow or
"stupid."
> > >>>Why has this not been selected against?
> > >>
> > >>See above. Fastness and intelligence have their price.
> > >
> > >
> > > According to the theory of evolution, survival is worth any cost.
> >
> > Not if you have to pay with survival.
>
> Survival always has a cost.
>
> > >>Btw, different animals have different stategies of survival. Some
are
> > >>fast to run away from their enemies, some hide from their
enemies, some
> > >>don't taste good. The best stategy depends on what the animal is
already
> > >>able to do (evolution is unlikely to massively transform animals
if a
> > >>small change in a different direction will do as well) and the
habitat
> > >>of the animal. For example it is easier to hide in the jungle
than in
> > >>the savannah. So sloths can survive in the jungle by hiding from
their
> > >>enemies while antelopes in the savannah have to run away from
them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Speed is advantageous in either environment. So is intelligence.
> > >
> > As you are not stupid I have to come to the conclusion that you are
> > deliberatly not understanding.
>
> Actually it seems you have chosen to ignore the fact that there are
many
> things that remain inexplicable in terms of evolution.
>
>
> > Further discussion does not seem to make
> > much sense.
>
> My purpose here is to inform (shrug).
>
>
> > >
> > >>>>>>>(2) Sloths
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>1: They don't hunt.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>2: They probably don't have many enemies that are able to
follow them in
> > >>>>the height of the trees.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>They are sometimes also on the ground.
> > >>
> > >>That's why they shouldn't draw unnecessary attention to
themselves by
> > >>undue speed.
> > >
> > >
> > > The faster sloth will still have a survival advantage over the
slower
> > > one.
> > >
> > > Reminds me of the following joke:
> > >
> > > Two men watched in horror as lion emerged from the forest licking
his
> > > lips. One of the men bent down to double-lace his running shoes.
The
> > > other man comments, "that's not going to help you out-run the
lion."
> > > The man wearing the running shoes replies, "I only need to
out-run you."
> >
> > In this case it is rather: the sloth that betrays his whereabouts
by
> > undue speed first, is seen and eaten by the jaguar.
>
> It seems you believe that speed necessarily means lack of stealth.
>
> Let me assure you that your belief is flawed.
>
> > >
> > >>>>3: The slowness of their movements serves as camouflage, so
such enemies
> > >>>>as might hunt them don't see them too often.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>You are thinking of the chameleon. The sloth's slow movements
is not
> > >>>camouflage. Having speed would still confer a survival
advantage.
> > >>>Why has there not been selection for this speed ?
> > >>
> > >>I'm not thinking of the chameleon, but camouflage is probably not
the
> > >>right word for what I meant. What I mean is that the slow speed
helps
> > >>the sloths to hide themselves. If they were a bit faster they
would
> > >>still be slower then their enemies but draw more attention to
> > >>themselves. So there is probably a strong selection _against_
them
> > >>getting any faster.
> > >
> > >
> > > In truth, there is not ever **natural** selection against speed,
> > > strength, or intelligence. See joke above.
> >
> > You are quite wrong with this. See this discussion.
>
> Please do.
>
> > >>>>>>>(3) Manatees
> > >>>>
> > >>>>1: They don't hunt.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>2: They probably don't have many enemies due to their habitat
and size,
> > >>>>except mankind, of course.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Speed would still confer a survival advantage. Why has there
not been
> > >>>selected for this?
> > >>
> > >>Like what survival advantage? How would this help the manatees?
> > >
> > >
> > > It would help them escape predators like sharks. They would also
be
> > > better able to get out of the way of boat propellers.
> >
> > Sharks don't hunt in the shallow waters that are the habitat of
> > manatees. And boat propellers were not around when manatees
evolved.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F24243CEA
>
> > >>>>3: Why do you think that manatees (and sloths) are stupid? They
might be
> > >>>>more intelligent than you think. Of course not as intelligent
as
> > >>>>chimpanzees or dolphins, but then again, there is no need for
them to be
> > >>>>so intelligent.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Intelligence would still confer a survival advantage. Why has
there not
> > >>>been selection for this?
> > >>
> > >>Because a large brain is expensive. Usually animals are
particularly
> > >>intelligent if they are either carnivores or have a complicated
social
> > >>life like many primates. For a manatee being as intelligent as a
dolphin
> > >>would be a waist of resources.
> > >
> > >
> > > It would not be a waste if it improves fitness for survival.
> >
> > _if_
> >
> > But it does not improve fitness for survival taking into account
the
> > cost and therefor it is a waste.
>
> That remains debatable.
>
> > >>>>>Yes ?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>And your explanation is ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I'm not Jeff, but I hope you are satisfied with my explantion.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>No. Nor should you be.
> > >>
> > >>Well, I am. A specialist for these animals could probably give
you even
> > >>better or more elaborate explanations.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bring them on.
> >
> > I'm not a specialist for any of these animals.
> >
> > But by all means, feel free to contact specialists for these
animals and
> > all will be revealed to you.
>
> Surely there is such a specialist among those reading this.
>
> > >>So you see, if a non-specialist
> > >>can come up with plausible explanations effortlessly, there does
not
> > >>seem to be any problem for the theory of natural selection at
all.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your explanations are unsatisfactory. Sorry.
> >
> > Sorry that you are unable to understand my explanations.
>
> If I did not understand your explanations, I would not have been able
to
> characterize them as unsatisfactory.
>
> > >>>>[...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Folks can witness the effect of gravity, firsthand.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>No one has witnessed the evolution of a new species,
firsthand.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Many races of dogs are so different from each other that they
would be
> > >>>>different species if they lived in free populations in the
nature.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>"Man selection" is not "natural selection."
> > >>
> > >>It is really quite similar. In both cases the fittest survive.
The only
> > >>difference is that with "man selection", man is able to specify
the
> > >>conditions for survival and that is a lot faster, because man is
able
> > >>to put a greater selection pressure on the animal than is usually
found
> > >>in the nature.
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the most important difference is that man is able to
specify
> > > unnatural criteria for survival. So we now have dogs that have
been
> > > selected for physical and neurological deformities making them
slower
> > > and less intelligent.
> > >
> > > If left to natural selection (aka survival of the fittest), we
should
> > > see less species diversity as the fittest species destroy the
slower and
> > > less intelligent species in their competition for finite
resources.
> > > Instead, the earth is rich with species diversity despite
countless
> > > extinctions as a consequence of man and the industrial
revolution.
> >
> > There many different ecological niches and therefor place for many
> > different animals with different caracteristics. Faster and smarter
are
> > not always better, regarding the costs, was has been explained to
you
> > (althoug this concept seems to be beyond your grasp). Much less is
being
> > fast and intelligent always necessary for survival. Therefor slow
and
> > dumb animals can survive and even thrive quite well. How much
> > intelligence does an anemone need?
> >
> > > This species diversity is not well explained by the theory of
> > > evolution. The intervention by an intelligent force can create
species
> > > diversity just as man has created tremendous diversity in dogs.
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>>You can say the same thing about gravity.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Not really.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Where there is no life, there can be no "natural
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>selection" which is the process by which living
creatures are killed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>off
> > >>>>>>>>>>>to **select** those with traits that promote survival.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>So what? where there is no life, there is no life.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Evolution requires life.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>The theory of evolution actually requires death of the
unfit.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>That is the theory of natural selection. Natural selection
is one
> > >>>>>>>>mechanism
> > >>>>>>>>of evolution. There are more, of course.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Natural selection is at the heart of the theory of
evolution.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>No it isn't. It is certainly a very important part of it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Natural selection is at the heart of the current theory of how
evolution
> > >>>>works (the synthetic theory).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Correct.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>That does mean that other theories of this
> > >>>>are impossible and in fact many other theories have been
proposed.
> > >>>
> > >>>This underscores the problems with the **current** theory of
evolution.
> > >>
> > >>No. Why should it?
> > >
> > >
> > > If the **current** theory of evolution were without problems,
there
> > > would be no need for other competing theories.
> >
> > If Christianity were the true religion there would be no need for
other
> > religions.
>
> Christianity is not about a religion but is about Lord Jesus.
>
> > It should be noted that of those competing theories have been
proposed a
> > long time ago and that all competing theories have been debunked by
the
> > vast majority of evolutionists.
>
> That remains debatable.
>
> > >>>>You should not confuse obervable facts like evolution or the
movements
> > >>>>of planets
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>In truth, the former has **not** been observed firsthand by
anyone.
> > >>
> > >>Yes, it has. You only have to open your eyes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, name one new species that has evolved from another that
**you** have
> > > witnessed firsthand.
> >
> > There is also evolution within species. That one is easier to see.
> >
> > But to give you an example: The developement of carrion crow and
hooded
> > crow into two different species is still in progress and so we can
> > witness it firsthand.
>
> Bottomline: you are unable to name a newly evolved species.
>
> > >>>>with the theories with which scientists explain these facts
> > >>>>(the synthetic theorie with natural selection as most important
part for
> > >>>>the evolution and gravity for the movements of planets).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Theories are neither facts nor observable phenomena.
> > >>
> > >>Which is why evolution shouldn't be regarded as a theory, as it
is an
> > >>observable phenomenon.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please be sure to let us know when you observe the evolution of a
new
> > > species.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Please do.
>
> > >
> > >>>>>>>Without natural selection, the theory of evolution would be
dead.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>No it would not. Things can evolve without natural selection,
like genetic
> > >>>>>>drift.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Genetic drift would not explain the creation of new species.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Not alone, but it is often a part in the creation of new
species.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Only as passive substrate.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>[...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Truth is simple.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Only to the simple-minded.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Actually, to the simple-minded without God's gift of truth
discernment,
> > >>>the truth does seem to be unfathomably complicated.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Reality _is_ complicated. But of course there are always those
who
> > >>prefer to avoid reality.
> > >
> > >
> > > Those who are able to discern the truth have no need to avoid
reality,
> > > which is subordinate to the truth.
> > >
> >
> > So I take it that you are not able to discern the truth or else you
> > wouldn't have to avoid reality.
>
> And yet, here I am, secure in the truth that I discern.
>
>
> At His service,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Suggested Reading:
> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Who are you and what have you done to Dr. Chung? Nice post.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... Where natural selection fails is when it tries to explain the existence of slow and seemingly stupid creatures. ... They don't have to be very intelligent either, because it does not require much brain to find the nearest eadible plant in comparison to hunt other animals. ... for eating slugs. ... According to the theory of evolution, ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... speed through evolution because the slower jaguars would died because they couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other animals. ... Where natural selection fails is when it tries to explain the existence of slow and seemingly stupid creatures. ... They don't have to be very intelligent either, because it does not require much brain to find the nearest eadible plant in comparison to hunt other animals. ... "Many things eat slugs. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
    ... couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other animals. ... No. Natural selection can explain how ... "Slugs, when attacked, can contract their body, making themselves harder and more compact and thus more difficult for many animals to get a hold. ... direction that evolution will probably take. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Semi-slugs?
    ... but indigenous species are few and far between. ... found in other Australian snails and slugs. ... English language of distinguishing between criiters with shells ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Semi-slugs?
    ... genetically to snails than to other species and genera of slugs. ... Classification is science. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast