Origins: The Evidence

Again, Wakefield is clearly no angel. Beyond him are the "many issues regarding fraud and malfeasance in the CDC, specifically regarding the link between neurodevelopmental disorders and childhood vaccines." A far more serious problem, at least potentially. Sure, that graph doesn't literally end in a "spike", just an exponential increase ending in 2007. Where's the data for past 10 years? "the CDC’s figure for 2013 is 1 in 50." The film exposes some definite cover ups. No doubt those willing and able to corrupt the CDC are the ones really getting or staying rich. In any case, I couldn't care less about Wakefield. Watch the film and see if you can disbelieve all the parents and kids providing their own testimony. Zero Jenny McCarthy. I guarantee.

 

Autism is not some new disease that suddenly appeared with vaccination, It has been around forever but used to be called retarded. Society has simply given it a new name and made it sound scarier while finding an uncorrelated reason for it. There is good reason this falls into a "Spectrum" (undefined and arbitrary designation), because much like ADHD (hyper) it is made up BS to explain away what has always been there with new wording that makes people strangely feel better.
Scientifically there is absolutely, positively, with no doubt whatsoever zero(0) ziltch nada and no data that ties Autism to vaccine.

 

I would put this in the 'supernatural' category. Now, it may well be that what we now call, 'supernatural' has a very logical & natural explanation. And, to the observer, anything with a 'supernatural' or 'intelligent' explanation would be the same. By what criteria could a normal human being distinguish advanced aliens from a deity?

 

As a reminder, here is a list of predictions & definitions for the models of origins, for the 2 main beliefs about the universe.

What would we expect, if the model of UD is the truth about origins of species?

1. all living things are related, since they are universally descended.
2. Life began as a single organism, & evolved into the complexity & variety we see today.
3. there should be many transitional forms, where species are becoming another, in every family/genera. Old ones dying out, & new ones adapting.
4. New traits, genes & adaptations should be happening all the time, demonstrating this transition.
5. There should be many exact copies, as well as close similarities within the genetic structure of living things. The dna should exhibit this descendancy, with a few nearly identical genes, if not quite a few exact copies, that did not 'need' to change to adapt.
6. If the fossil record is assumed over long evolutionary time periods, then we should expect to see many transitional forms, between the different species, in the fossil record.
7. The mechanism for this transition should be easy to observe, define, & test, if this is a current & common condition of living things, even under the time assumptions.
8. Reproduction between species in a close family/genus phylogenetic type should be relatively easy, to make the transitions possible.
9. There should be many vestigial conditions, that show the old traits from the transitional species.
10. It should be easy to force, under laboratory conditions, the transition between a species & a new one. If new traits are constantly being created by living things, then these traits should be coming up in a way that demonstrates the UD phenomenon.
11. It should be difficult to isolate a species in a specific morphological condition, as it would be continuously adapting & creating new traits.

What would we expect, if the model of ID is the truth about origins of species?

1. A creator, or unseen, intelligent designer created each living phylogenetic type, as a family/genus/species.
2. A multitude of variety of living things began all at once, simultaneously. This is not necessary, but seems reasonable, given the interdependency of living things.
3. Variety within the phylogenetic family/genus/species would be limited by the genes in the ancestral organism.
4. Reproduction would be limited to occurring within each genetic family/genus/species (f/g/s).
5. Time is an unknown & unnecessary factor. There could be ancient dates, or recent. They are non-factors in ID.
6. There should not be 'vestigial' organs. Each organ should have a purpose, designed for a specific use.
7. The fossil record would show complex organisms, appearing suddenly, with no transitional forms. There would be no 'transitional' forms, as there is no transitioning taking place, in the ID model.
8. Mutations & damage to the genetic structure would almost always be a negative, for an organism. Any positive claim from mutation would be circumstantial & projected.
9. Laboratory conditions would not be able to force major structural changes in the genome, as each organism is locked into its genetic f/g/s.
10. Reproductive isolation would not conflict with the ID model. That some organism can breed in an isolated state, narrowing their genetic options, even to reproductive isolation would be a unique trait of the particular f/g/s that is being examined.
11. The genetic structure would be distinct for each f/g/s phylotype. There would not be any lingering similarities, or exact copies, or matching strands of DNA that would indicate ancestry.
12. Organisms could be narrowed in their traits, by selective breeding.. either natural or by man.

I welcome any additions or corrections, for comparing these models of origins, which is the topic of this thread.

 

Actual empirical evidence for the existence of advanced aliens would be YUUUUUGE distinguishing difference!

 

It just looks like to me that the materialistic evolutionists have already concluded that evolution is a purely materialistic process, including what has been referred to here as macro evolution. As they have concluded that the rise of a self replicating molecule was by pure chance, and arose out of randomness, order from disorder. And it was also by pure chance that this self replicating molecule coincidently had the potentiality of by evolution, evolving into a self replicating single cell organism with its great complexity, and organelles which worked in harmony to then evolve into multicellular organisms, of greater complexity, and with pure chance dictating this all along the way, eventually evolved into man. But this requires faith, in chance, or order arising from disorder, using pure materialistic processes. And it will continue to depend upon faith, unless they can eventually cash in these promissory notes they have issued. Of course they reject any idea of their faith, but objectively that is what it is.

Then you have the faith of the religious, who believe not only in a creator, but the most simplistic of creators that coincidently remind us of ourselves, human beings. This group have also concluded they know the truth of creation. But just like the evolutionists just do not have the kind of evidence that would convince a critical, rationally thinking mind. But they will admit their beliefs rely upon faith and unlike the evolutionists are at least honest in this admission. Hell, you cannot even get some of the evolutionists to admit that their approach to evolution is based upon a philosophical assumption. LOL So of course they will never admit the role of faith in their materialistic beliefs. They will exercise metaphysical beliefs while denying they are doing that. LOL

I know there are medical doctors who are suspicious of these vaccine cocktails which by the way contain a helluva lot more vaccines than I got when a child. I was surprised to see so many different vaccines which my generation never got.

But all I would have to see would be a study that was very simple, and I don't know if a simple study is what was used, and would bet that a simple study was not used. So, take 10 thousand kids, and with half of them you vaccinate at the same age and the other 5000 you do not vaccinate. Run this test 10 times with 10 different groups. Then follow each group and test for autism If the vaccinated have the same incidences of autism as the unvaccinated then you have your answer. And I bet this kind of study has not been done. For if so, there would not be doctors questioning the results of the study.

And if this straight forward kind of study has not been done, then why not? Apparently whatever methods were used does not satisfy some doctors. I remember when tobacco companies did research on tobacco using scientists and were not on the up and up. For there was lots of money involved. Anytime big bucks are involved, you better run a study many times, and with different groups. And those studies have to be simple and straightforward. If women will sell their bodies, a man will sell his honesty. With most humans, everything indeed does have a price except with only a few. Never forget that.

 

I appreciate the way you think and how you enjoy communicating your thoughts. You do not describe how I see this business at all, though you no doubt peg many. I'll just share this partial paragraph to see whether you have any problem with it (link provided to check the original context, but it shouldn't matter):

 

Nope, none whatsoever. No data, no science, "nuh uh."

 

No, there is no problem with vaccinations. They do not cause autism, no matter when they are administered.

 

Are you ever going to get around to providing your peer reviewed evidence to rebut what you were given on page one? It's been 18 pages now.

 

........NOPE...............

 

Everyone knows that Stalmoth of Tetralon is what human refer to as God. This xlagyot has travelled all 17 dimensions and lives in multiple phases of time visiting the planet Earth continuously since it eliminated the predator species and developed mammilians. Your evaluation of ID/Evolution is slightly accurate if simplified. Our current timeline is the only one available to stage 2 beings and thus is the correct one.

 

Wakefield is a total fraud. He is a known and continual liar, not having stopped even after having been proven wrong, his methods repudiated and having his credentials revoked.

If there are problems at the CDC, find and follow someone who isn't a total proven fraud who can be trusted when they make their allegations.

Why in God's name would you listen to Wakefield on ANY topic? I don't understand that logic.

To me, that graph looks not even slightly exponential. In fact, it appears as a strait line, doesn't it? And, even as you point out, the increase isn't of proven origin, with strong suspicion that greater efforts at diagnosing the problem and a broader definition of autism are significant contributors.

Your CDC "getting rich" allegation is substantiated by ... what? I do want to know.

Autism data including the last 10 years is not being hidden. Is Wakefield making that "hidden data" claim???

Let's remember that other countries care about autism, too. So, how does Wakefield explain the coincidence of numbers of cases between the US and other countries doing similar analysis? Is he proposing that other countries are hiding info, too, or that this is a CDC led world wide conspiracy, or what?

https://spectrumnews.org/news/u-s-stats-show-autism-rate-reaching-possible-plateau/

https://www.waisman.wisc.edu/news2014-autism-rates.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr087.pdf

 

You've expressed your need to believe that unmistakably now. You, the CDC, and big pharma remain in perfect sync.

 

I don't give a ff about Wakefield. Watch the film. Don't watch the film. Up to you. Just a film suggestion. No gun to your head.

 

I object to that characterization.

 

I totally disagree that religious people are causing the general population to discount science and are causing science to be excluded from public policy decisions.

What over the past 20 years is the biggest science related public policy subject? Global warming. And it has been so heavily politicized by the "progressives", its scientific aspects so abused and manipulated, its impact so exaggerated, its claims so discredited, that it more than anything else has caused the opinion of scientists to be questioned and discounted.

 

Is it cost effective to spend $8,000 to protect $10,000 worth of stuff that only has a 1% chance of ever being stolen? This is what risk assessment is all about. If the cost of protection greater than the value of the item being protected, then what is the point of the protection? So you have to ask yourself, what are the chances of a child developing autism from a vaccine compared to the chances of contracting and dying from the infectious disease that the vaccine would have protected them from? Does autism have a greater cost than a child contracting a deadly disease?

 

yes, all available evidence shows there is no relevance between vaccinations and autism. Not sure what else you expect?

 

Have you noticed that ID/Creationism, global warming denial, vaccine/autism and flat Earth all require a conspiracy among scientists for them to be valid? It's funny, because quantum physics, evolution, plate tectonics, and relativity don't require any conspiracies.

 

Define deadly disease?

 

I'm actually objecting to the very suggestion that people watch the film.

People should not be advised to watch the film.

Wakefield's work must be strongly opposed on the grounds of having been proven false and the fact that it is an assault on the health of Americans.

This is not a joke issue and Wakefield can not be forgiven. Wakefield's continuing fraud has caused real harm to the health of Americans and this movie pays him for doing that while promoting the proven fraud.
If you have a problem with the CDC or big pharma, find a source that isn't a proven liar. Find someone else to pay. Maybe even find out what honest detractors find to be objectionable about the CDC or big pharma. If there are real problems (which I think there are with big pharma at least) promote a source who tells the truth rather than basing your opinion on the proven lies of a huckster who uses the cash to assault the health of American children.

 

Refuted by the links I posted which took about 5 seconds of internet research. I expect you to use your head and think for yourself instead of just parroting corporate sound bites.

 

Okay, fear the film. Don't watch it. It will corrupt you. It's evil.