Evidence of God is everywhere.
The Bible states that truth clearly, when it tells us, "The hearing ear and the seeing eye — Jehovah has made both of them."
The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.
The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.
Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.
The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.
The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is remarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.
The outer ear is precisely designed with a specially designed structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear.
How the ear works
How the hearing works
[youtube][/youtube]
How your ear works - Inside the Human Body: Building Your Brain - BBC One
[youtube][/youtube]
The eye is a highly efficient, self-adjusting “camera� that transmits impulses to the brain, where the object focused on the eye’s retina is interpreted as sight.
The possession of two eyes, as in the human body, provides stereoscopic vision. Sight is probably the most important channel of communication to the mind.
How the Eye Works Animation - How Do We See Video - Nearsighted & Farsighted Human Eye Anatomy
Anatomy and Function of the Eye
[youtube][/youtube]
A Journey Through the Human Eye: How We See
Eye Animation
[youtube][/youtube]
If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?
An egg from a woman’s ovaries cannot produce life on its own. For this to happen, a sperm cell from the male reproductive system must combine with the nucleus of the egg.
What does the sperm do to make the egg develop?
Differently shaped cells begin to form - nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells, and all the other types that make up the human body.
Science Digest
No one knows for sure, why certain cells aggregate to form a kidney while others join to form a liver, and so on.
Eventually, the human body reaches full growth, being made up of some 100,000,000,000,000 cells.
What causes the cells to stop dividing at just the right time and why?
How Sperm Meets Egg | Parents
[youtube][/youtube]
The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell
Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?
Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.
Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?
Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist? Evidence for arguments required.
e drug problem in many countries, especially western ones who also have many problems with depression and suicide. In the US the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has now officially labelled prescription drug abuse as an epidemic.
This has more to do with the drug war making prescription medications easier to access than illicit drugs, over incarcerations, and the fact that we have thousands of vets who are not being treated for PTSD.
Moreover anti depressants are not included in the drug epidemic and research has shown the majority of patients prescribed anti depressants do not abuse them
[centre]I don't know about you, but I'll take my medical advice from a qualified practitioner.
Part Two[/center]
stevevw wrote:
Of course and I am not saying we should not seek expert medical advice.
Ah, ok.
Thanks for clarifying that.
It almost appeared as if you were saying that we should look elsewhere, and to find some alternative medicine, instead.
stevevw wrote:
But I find that some doctors if not most have become a bit complacent or maybe its the system but they can rely on prescribing medication to readily instead of looking at other ways to remedy medical conditions.
You seem to claim to know the state of "most" doctors scepticism.
I think that's a fabulous claim.
I really have to reject it.
I don't have a clue how you could possibly know that.
Maybe you didn't read the evidence from my previous post to DanieltheDragon. If you take notice of the links I posted they are saying that the system is wrong because it is making pills the answer in a world that wants quick answers. It also says the prescription problem is rampant and one of the leading causes of deaths in the US. To me, that means it's a big problem. It also states that for some drugs like prescription narcotics 99% doctors are over prescribing. So for me, that supports what I stated. I am not claiming to know the state of Doctors minds the research is showing that there is a big problem with Doctors and overprescribing.
In a culture of quick and easy fixes, prescription medication has become synonymous with “wellness.�
The problem of overprescribing medication is rampant in America and pharmaceutical drug overdoses are now one of the leading causes of death in the nation. http://www.rehabs.com/are-doctors-to-bl ... rug-abuse/
Are Doctors to Blame for Prescription Drug Abuse?
According to the US Centre for Disease Control CDC data, the percent of people taking at least one prescription drug increased by 50 percent between the years of 2007 and 2010.
If there is a 50% increase in prescription drugs being given out within a 3 year period that indicates that prescription pills have been given out more for some reason. When you add this to prescription drugs being one of the leading causes of death it does not paint a good picture.
The same report states that doctors are being criticised for succumbing to the "business" of healthcare rather than the practice. Along with drug cascading, doctors are also being criticised for succumbing to the “business� of healthcare rather than the practice. In other words, they increasingly represent a professional front for the billion-dollar drug industry instead of focusing on wellness. http://www.rehabs.com/are-doctors-to-bl ... rug-abuse/
Still another report says that 99% of doctors are over-prescribing narcotics. So it is not my assessment that says most doctors are being complacent but the reports are stating this in one way or another. Research also shows that When American doctors give their patients narcotic painkillers, 99 percent of them hand out prescriptions that exceed the federally recommended three-day dosage limit http://www.health.com/pain/nearly-all-u ... ive-narcot...
stevevw wrote:
Hense we have an epidemic of prescribed medication addiction.
An epidemic you say.
Hyperbolic choice of word and quite medical, too.
Prescribed medications are sometimes the only way we have to deal with an epidemic, my friend.
I think that some doctors might be quicker to prescribe medications that others.
And of course, some doctors are better than others, too.
Some doctors might under-prescribe.
What we want is the correct dose. A good doctor cares about that kind of thing.
But your over-generalizing is quite harmful.
I'm not a happy cat.
I'm sorry to hear that but it is not me that is saying it's an epidemic but organisations like the US centre for disease control.
Faced with mounting evidence of a public health crisis so serious that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has termed it an “epidemic� of prescription painkiller abuse,1 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3 ... .21243/pdf
The use of prescription narcotics, and the problems associated with them, are so pervasive that, last month, the Food and Drug Administration recommended tightening regulations for how doctors prescribe some of the most commonly used narcotic painkillers. http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre ... l-epidemic
So these major US health organisations are saying that the problem is an epidemic and pervasive. If you also include all the other remarks made by those in the know it seems there is an epidemic and action needs to be taken. It doesn't help that some will deny this and pretend its all OK.
But you seem to be criticising the pursuit of science. You seem to want to "roll it back".
I wonder why?
I think your reading more into what I have said then what is there. As I have already stated I am not saying we should get rid of the health system or doctors or prescription medication. My main point has been that there is an over use of prescription medication and an over-reliance of one form of treatment.
It's a good idea to remind scientists to be careful, but really? Do we really have to ?
Should this be our first priority? You might not be aware of how science self-regulates, but it does.
I suppose that some of them aren't as careful as they might be. And then, if caught, eventually get kicked out of the medical profession, and quite possibly, arrested.
Good science, and that would include medical science, has checks for errors built in.
Not caring for people's well-being would be a HUGE medical error, my friend.
Yeah, the good scientists know to be quite careful.
Are you imagining that they don't care?
What kind of psychopathic monsters do you think medical scientists are?
Firstly I am not talking about science in general and have not said anything about science in general. You are taking things to an extreme by expanding this into something about all science. I think you would have to either have blinkers on or be in denial to think that the medical industry is self-regulatory and does not have issues that they don't deal with. The fact that all the major health organisations admit there is a problem with overprescription and that many doctors are responsible shows that this is a problem that has not been dealt with and is out of control.
stevevw wrote:
There are other ways to deal with most everyday ailments.
Some other ways are not as good as the modern ones. We call that scientific progress That's why medical scientists are working so hard to constantly replace what medical practices we have now with better ones. Have you heard of "progress" at all?
Science tries to find out the most effective methods, the less harmful, the less painful, the least costly ( so that more people can benefit ) and so on. In a word, BETTER medical practices.
IF those "other ways" were better than medical science has to offer, everyone in his right mind would have to say "take those, instead".
You are quite free to take inferior methods.
I don't know about you, but I'll take my medical advice from a qualified practitioner who uses the best-known methods available.
I think you are taking things to extremes again. I am talking about the overuse of prescription drugs and the fact is there is a big problem with this. You seem to want to deny that and make out I am having a go at all medical practices as well as scientists and science in general all because I have brought up an issue about prescription drug abuse.
The fact is there is a problem of overuse of prescription drugs which means alternative methods are not being considered. That doesn’t mean we have to use witch doctors or strange alternative methods and I have not said this. I am talking about common sense alternatives like lifestyle changes, therapy, diet, nutrition, naturopathy, counselling and spirituality etc. All these methods have proven helpful but take time and it seems that by using medication all the time it is taking the quick and easy way out.
stevevw wrote:
A lot has to do with the frame of mind and you don't need to go to psychologists to get help for this.
If you don't really need a psychologist, don't go.
Are you suggesting that nobody needs to go?
No, quite the opposite. Psychologists and the like are a good alternative for prescription drugs or can work in combination with them. But many of our everyday issues do not need that much intervention and are to do with people getting anxious about everyday life. We just need communities that care and support and help each other. A lot has to do with isolation. I work in the industry in the front line and a lot of people just want connection, with others.
A lot of their problem is perception, in that because they are alone and anxious they don't get that connection and therefore everything becomes a worry and taken out of context. They perhaps need some counselling or a good friend they can talk too. Because we are now making everything an issue which use to be dealt with by communities supporting each other these things are now made worse than they really are. So a lot comes down to perception and a frame of mind. Your frame of mind can affect you physically.
stevevw wrote:
But as I believe there are is also a spiritual aspect to our life and this needs attention as well. More people are recognising this today.
If someone needs to go see a preacher they should go.
Maybe they don't need a psychologist.
But a lot of preachers engage in "free" ( feel free to donate ) psychology, but of course, you get what you pay for in some cases. There are also some preachers who will offer free medical advice. They would be quite wrong to do so, unless they are qualified.
No, I am not talking about seeing a preacher. That is not necessarily spiritual support. It is more to do with things beyond the material world. Prayer is an example and also spiritual therapy. Being with others who are spiritual as well. This can have an effect on people and actually heal them or prevent them from disease, and mental disorders etc. It can offer an alternative remedy for things like drug and alcohol addiction or from depression etc. It can offer hope and companionship to people. There is now research and evidence that shows that spiritual therapy helps people and those who are associated with religious belief have better outcomes of health and mental wellbeing.
stevevw wrote:
To me, this is not too different to taking drugs to alleviate feeling down or insecure.
There are many people who could not live without medication.
We used to lock people with mental illness in places like Bedlam.
No one is saying lock anyone up and you are taking the debate to the extreme again. Yes people need medication and I am not denying that. We are talking about the overprescription of drugs and for that there is definite evidence of a major problem which is actually causing more health problems.
But you seem to be saying we should bring the old, outdated, "alternative" medical practices back. There is a reason "alternative medicine" is so darn alternative.
I have not said anything like that and once again I think you are reading something into what I am saying. You seem to be only considering extreme alternatives rather than the many good alternatives already mentioned. Put it this way because there is a major problem with the over prescription of medication there has to be alternatives.
Yes, modern medical science is really really better, isn't it?.
In fact, when it comes to health, it's the best we got.
Yes I agree but its not the answer for every situation. [/quote]
It's as if you never heard of the concept "progress".
When it comes to medical science "We've come a long way from Bedlam, baby!".
That is exactly what I am doing by bringing up the problem of over-prescription of prescribed drugs and the advocating of alternative methods like naturopathy, lifestyle changes, nutritionists, therapy, stress relaxation methods and spiritualism. These are all now recognised as good methods for dealing with many of the issues that people seek pills for. In fact if these methods were used more we would not have such a big problem. It seems the only person not supporting progress is you by denying there is a problem and trying to say that prescribed medication is OK for every situation.
Go to a faith healer if you think it's a good idea. They used to be all that we had back in the day. Some people think it's still a good idea.
I'm not sure you are advocating for that, but your blanket skepticism of medical science is very unthoughtful, my friend. It's as if you never went to a hospital or even heard of them.
I get really irritated by people who so easily criticize medical science as if there was anything better or that they knew better that the medical scientists.
The arrogance astounds me.
Not a happy cat.
Your taking things to the extreme again. I have not said anything along those lines or am advocating for anyone to give up going to a doctor or using hospitals. I am not criticising the entire scientific organisation but merely pointing out a particular issue with prescribed drugs which is also being highlighted by the scientific and medical industry themselves.
stevevw wrote:
Medication is needed but it should be controlled more and there is an overuse.
Why don't you ask doctors if you should overuse ]some medication?
I think you might find out how many would say yes.
Your critique is unthoughtful.
I think you could do way better than that.
I think you are almost saying that doctors should over medicate, is that right.
stevevw wrote:
There are more people addicted to prescribed drugs than illegal ones. We need to look at non-medicating remedies as well that being so eager to just prescribe a pill for everything.
Non-medicating remedies?
What on earth do you think that means?
Do you mean ineffective remedies?
No as stated above there are many non-medicating remedies. For example, with depression many people can overcome depression through counselling and therapy. Many people can overcome stress and anxiety with relation therapy rather than drugs. Many people can overcome the same issues that others use medication for with natural therapies. As mentioned we should be taking a holistic approach which considers different methods and not just drugs.
TheBeardedDude wrote:
It is a false dichotomy to present these two options ("purposeful design or chanced purposeless")
The theory of evolution does NOT posit that the adaptations of life are a consequence of "chance" nor that they are without purpose. Evolution demonstrates that there are mechanisms that do indeed generate genetic and morphological change in a population (natural selection, sexual selection, etc), so it is not "chance" in that it is random. Nor are adaptations without purpose ("purposeless" as the OP put it). Organisms adapt the structures that they have specific purposes. For instance, your fingers weren't made for typing nor did they evolve for typing, you adapted them for typing.
So if a creature adapts a feature like your example of fingers being adapted for typing then that change in function may become a benefit. But that change in function is not evolutionary. It is a change in use of an existing feature and was not produced by natural selection.
Correct. It is not a change to the genetic structure of the organism or its population.
When someone exercises (making their muscles larger and better suited for tasks), they are not changing their genes, which are what is passed on through subsequent generations to alter the population.
Evolution occurs based on what is passed onto the next generation. If muscles you obtained through working out, or finger dexterity you achieved through hard work, were passed onto the next generation, that would be Lamarckian evolution. Put simply, the world does not work that way (or we would observe it and the kind of changes it would make).
You DO have genes that allow for the stimulation and improvement of muscles and finger dexterity. And those are passed onto offspring, but it's not considered an evolutionary change just because you had it for a generation. It's a commonplace feature of humans, a trait that has been developed and stayed fairly the same as far as we can tell.
If the genes involved in granting muscles the opportunity to improve through stress were altered over time, and produced a new result in many generations from now, that would be an evolutionary change.
So if a creature adapts a feature like your example of fingers being adapted for typing then that change in function may become a benefit. But that change in function is not evolutionary. It is a change in use of an existing feature and was not produced by natural selection.
But imagine a scenario (purely hypothetical and only as an example) where the ability to type rapidly and accurately was a requirement to obtain food or a mate, and that having six fingers dramatically improved that function. So much so that it created a tremendous advantage for anyone with 6 working fingers on one or both hands.
Very few cases of polydactyly occur, and fewer still with a fully functioning extra finger (usually on the pinky side, called postaxial polydactyly). There is indication that it can be caused by mutations in the Hoxa or Hoxd gene clusters, which participate in the segmentation of bodies during development.
If the advantage in typing was large enough, the mutations in the genes that cause the condition may become more common in the population, and eventually create a population with more than the average rate of polydactyly. Eventually, it is possible to end up with a population containing only 6-fingered people as the genetic changes required to create this condition became fixed in the population because 6 fingered people were better able to survive and reproduce (eg. like Darwin's finch beak lengths).
This is how evolution works to create change in response to some external pressure. It is true that the Hox genes were there to begin with, and at present there is no practical advantage to having extra fingers so no pressure to create them. But if there were such pressure as in this obviously simple example, evolution would support any genetic changes that help the cause and suppress those that hinder it. It always works with what is there because it has to, but new features can be created in this way if there is an appropriate driving force, or even entirely new species.
[center] Demanding simple answers to very complex problems is unreasonable[/center]
stevevw wrote:
Maybe you didn't read the evidence from my previous post to DanieltheDragon.
Yeah, maybe not.
Sorry.
stevevw wrote:
If you take notice of the links I posted they are saying that the system is wrong because it is making pills the answer in a world that wants quick answers.
People can say just about anything.
Some people believe an article is the truth because they want quick answers to very complex problems.
stevevw wrote:
It also says the prescription problem is rampant and one of the leading causes of deaths in the US.
Well, it doesn't seem to be in the top ten by at least some measure:
" Nearly 75% of all deaths in the US are attributed to just 10 causes, with the top 3 of these accounting for over 50% of all deaths. Over the last five years, the main causes of death in the US have remained fairly consistent, although unintentional injuries (accidents) became the fourth leading cause of death in 2013, while stroke became the fifth.
stevevw wrote:
To me, that means it's a big problem.
It probably is.
So are stairs.
Whadayagonnado?
stevevw wrote:
It also states that for some drugs like prescription narcotics 99% doctors are over prescribing.
Yeah, about that...
I have to be a little skeptical about reports of abuse of drugs...
It's not as if the USA isn't in a war against drugs.
We really have to be careful to not fall for propaganda, I'm afraid.
I don't know where to look for unbiased research on drugs at this time. There is a lot of governmental pressure for the "anti" side.
They are battling over marijuana over there..
The drug problem is really complex.
I'd say extremely complex.
So, let's not jump to conclusions.
We have data that demonstrates that many anti-drug laws are counter productive.
What we need is level headed research.
What we need is more science.
In the meantime, we should look to other countries and see what they are doing, and how they are doing.
I don't think you are advocating for banning all opiates, are you?
If there is a problem, we should fix it.
That goes without saying.
stevevw wrote:
So for me, that supports what I stated. I am not claiming to know the state of Doctors minds the research is showing that there is a big problem with Doctors and overprescribing.
Ok, good. You aren't claiming to read anyone's mind any longer.
That's progress.
So, I wonder why doctors seem to be over-prescribing opioids?
stevevw wrote:
In a culture of quick and easy fixes, prescription medication has become synonymous with “wellness.�
Yes, in a culture that relies on easy fixes, we have Donald Trump.
Easy fixes isn't the answer to complex problems.
Drugs in our society is an extremely complex problem.
It irritates me to no end that so many people seem to have all kinds of EASY answers to extremely complex problems. People like Donald Trump come to mind.
Apparently, he has all the answers to just about everything.
Maybe you can ask him how to solve this one.
( I'm confident you'd get an answer, by the way )
But you seem to be criticizing the pursuit of science. You seem to want to "roll it back".
I wonder why?
stevevw wrote:
I think your reading more into what I have said then what is there.
I make a lot of mistakes, and I am always willing to be corrected.
stevevw wrote:
As I have already stated I am not saying we should get rid of the health system or doctors or prescription medication.
That's really good to know.
stevevw wrote:
My main point has been that there is an over use of prescription medication and an over-reliance of one form of treatment.
"Over-reliance."
Apparently, there are people who know exactly how much we should rely on them.
The keepers of the "Goldilocks Zone for Drugs"?
Their motto might be:
"WE ARE THE DRUG BOSS OF YOU"
What kind of psychopathic monsters do you think medical scientists are?
stevevw wrote:
Firstly I am not talking about science in general and have not said anything about science in general.
I didn't write "science in general". I wrote "medical scientists".
And medical science is a part of "science" in general.
It's simpler for me to write "science" than "medical science" because there are less letters to type.
Sorry if my typing laziness caused you to be confused.
So, in the future, when you read, "science", in this debate, feel free to attach "medical" in front of it.
I think both of us were talking about some form of science, right?
stevevw wrote:
I think you would have to either have blinkers on or be in denial to think that the medical industry is self-regulatory and does not have issues that they don't deal with.
Did I ever say that science, including medical science is perfect?
I don't recall having written that.
It's not really my style.
stevevw wrote:
The fact that all the major health organisations admit there is a problem with overprescription and that many doctors are responsible shows that this is a problem that has not been dealt with and is out of control.
"Out of control".
I love the rhetoric.
Opioids sure have their side-effects.
What should we do about that?
Be more careful about that?
You are quite free to take inferior methods.
I don't know about you, but I'll take my medical advice from a qualified practitioner who uses the best-known methods available.
stevevw wrote:
I think you are taking things to extremes again. I am talking about the overuse of prescription drugs and the fact is there is a big problem with this.
You were mentioning alternative medicine, my friend.
Like herbal remedies, perhaps?
Chinese medicine?
Acupuncture?
Homeopathy?
Chakra healing?
Say WHAT now?
Here is a quote from a "holistic" ( read alternative ) health website where we can get all the information about all the scientific non mainstream, alternative substances and practices that good money can buy:
"Site owner is a certified Holistic Health Practitioner. (HHP) This is NOT a medical license of ANY KIND. We simply share information with you. All of the information presented here regarding holistic health products or alternative medicine is public information. We have discovered some of the highest quality products and want to share them with everyone we know. "
Is this the kind of alternative "frequency rising" you want people to get?
stevevw wrote:
The fact is there is a problem of overuse of prescription drugs which means alternative methods are not being considered.
That's a very big leap.
I say "Go for it" ( but run real fast, first )
The fact that there is a problem with opioid addiction doesn't automatically imply you know the reason for it, my friend. Nice guess, though.
Jump if you must.
But that statement wasn't logically valid.
stevevw wrote:
That doesn’t mean we have to use witch doctors or strange alternative methods and I have not said this.
Yeah, you keep repeating that.
You seem to be advocating for more alternative medicine.
That seems to be your solution, but I'm not too sure.
Sometimes, you seem to say yes, and then sometimes, no.
Hard to fathom your actual position, quite frankly.
stevevw wrote:
I am talking about common sense alternatives like lifestyle changes, therapy, diet, nutrition, naturopathy, counselling and spirituality etc.
You might have to convince everyone to not take the most effective, easiest, cheapest pain medicine first.
I just had a heart operation, let me tell you I didn't care for the spiritual healing, my friend.
I wanted my opiates.
Meditation wasn't going to work for me.
stevevw wrote:
All these methods have proven helpful but take time and it seems that by using medication all the time it is taking the quick and easy way out.
Helpful... great, then you take these so very "helpful" methods.
I wanted my opiates, thank you very much.
There is no virtue in taking the hard way out.
A rational person should prefer the easiest way out, instead.
If you don't really need a psychologist, don't go.
Are you suggesting that nobody needs to go?
stevevw wrote:
Psychologists and the like are a good alternative for prescription drugs or can work in combination with them. But many of our everyday issues do not need that much intervention and are to do with people getting anxious about everyday life.
Then lets get more psychologists why don't we... who is going to pay for that?
There's only so much money in the world.
Yes, some people get anxious, don't they?
So, you want them to not ]seek the best kind of help?
There is no virtue in taking the hard way out.
I call that way inefficient and very wrong headed.
Medical science should be concerned with making it easier on us, not harder. You are heading in precisely the wrong direction. Nobody is saying that opiates are perfect. We need more medical research. Let's spend more on that. But until we have something better, we should just use the best we have.
If there are problems, we should fix them.
Complaining that there is a problem isn't fixing anything.
stevevw wrote:
We just need communities that care and support and help each other.
JUST NEED
Yeah, as if changing the WORLD is an easy solution. That's vastly MORE complex than any one problem like drugs.
stevevw wrote:
A lot has to do with isolation. I work in the industry in the front line and a lot of people just want connection, with others.
I'm happy that you are doing good work.
Please, continue.
But please, don't pretend to have all the answers.
I think that kind of over-simplification can do more harm than good.
This is an EXTREMELY complex problem.
To imagine an easy answer or a quick one is completely unreasonable.
Not a happy cat.
stevevw wrote:
A lot of their problem is perception, in that because they are alone and anxious they don't get that connection and therefore everything becomes a worry and taken out of context. They perhaps need some counselling or a good friend they can talk too.
Sure, let's give everyone good counselling and a good friend they can talk to.
I think it should be free, because most people who are in trouble with drugs also have money problems.
stevevw wrote:
Because we are now making everything an issue which use to be dealt with by communities supporting each other these things are now made worse than they really are.
Things used to be SO much better back in the Bedlam days.. when everyone was more connected than we are now, right?
Let's LOCK THEM UP.
( I think that's Trump's quick solution, isn't it? .. more prisons, more cops? )
stevevw wrote:
So a lot comes down to perception and a frame of mind. Your frame of mind can affect you physically.
Yes, wishing things into existence is all the rage these days... everything is in our heads. Wish upon a star.
stevevw wrote:
It is more to do with things beyond the material world.
when you wish upon a star
makes no difference who you are
Again, thanks for the free medical advice.
It's terrible, by the way.
[center]
Misunderstanding what natural selection means.[/center]
stevevw wrote:
So if a creature adapts a feature like your example of fingers being adapted for typing then that change in function may become a benefit. But that change in function is not evolutionary. It is a change in use of an existing feature and was not produced by natural selection.
Adapting to the environment is what natural selection means.
Time to crack those books open.
"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. "
Correct. It is not a change to the genetic structure of the organism or its population.
When someone exercises (making their muscles larger and better suited for tasks), they are not changing their genes, which are what is passed on through subsequent generations to alter the population.
Evolution occurs based on what is passed onto the next generation. If muscles you obtained through working out, or finger dexterity you achieved through hard work, were passed onto the next generation, that would be Lamarckian evolution. Put simply, the world does not work that way (or we would observe it and the kind of changes it would make).
You DO have genes that allow for the stimulation and improvement of muscles and finger dexterity. And those are passed onto offspring, but it's not considered an evolutionary change just because you had it for a generation. It's a commonplace feature of humans, a trait that has been developed and stayed fairly the same as far as we can tell.
If the genes involved in granting muscles the opportunity to improve through stress were altered over time, and produced a new result in many generations from now, that would be an evolutionary change.
I have read that the conditions that one generation is subjected to can have an epigenetic effect on future generations. In other words, if you grandparents or even great grandparents had a stressful life or a had a poor diet such as living through a famine then this could affect the way a future generations genes are expressed.
I have always wondered about certain traits being passed on such as the inheritance of traits such as addiction and aggression or how some people find it easier to be calmer or struggle with diet issues. It may be that there was an influence from the past as well.
Grandma's Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes
Your ancestors' lousy childhoods or excellent adventures might change your personality, bequeathing anxiety or resilience by altering the epigenetic expressions of genes in the brain. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13 ... your-genes
We do know a parent's environment can have effects on its offspring through epigenetics, but those changes don't seem to stick around in the genome and drive evolution the way Lamarckian evolution suggests it should.
[Youtube][/Youtube]
Epigenetics as a field is under study, but all studies shown have demonstrated that epigenetic effects are greatly limited, and attempting to overstate their effectiveness isn't advised.
People can say just about anything.
I believe the links I posted are fairly accurate because they use peer reviewed sources and do a lot of research for the government and health organisations. Most organisations use info like statistical info from research reports and government research bodies like Australian Bureau of Statistics. You have to be able to come to a conclusion based on that info of what the issue is otherwise you can never know the problems to address them.
Well, it doesn't seem to be in the top ten by at least some measure:
" Nearly 75% of all deaths in the US are attributed to just 10 causes, with the top 3 of these accounting for over 50% of all deaths. Over the last five years, the main causes of death in the US have remained fairly consistent, although unintentional injuries (accidents) became the fourth leading cause of death in 2013, while stroke became the fifth.
To clarify this the article was talking about opiate medications being the leading cause of death in all prescription medications. It also accounts for over 50% of deaths through overdose. These deaths now outnumber overdoses from cocain and heroin combined. The point is we have a problem with prescription drugs. No one would deny that cocaine and heroin are a problem that needs addressing. So if prescription drugs are outnumbering these illegal drugs in deaths then we have a problem.
stevevw wrote:
To me, that means it's a big problem.
It probably is.
So are stairs.
Whadayagonnado?
It is almost like you are dismissing the fact that we have a problem.
stevevw wrote:
It also states that for some drugs like prescription narcotics 99% doctors are over prescribing.
Yeah, about that...
I have to be a little sceptical about reports of abuse of drugs...
It's not as if the USA isn't in a war against drugs.
We really have to be careful to not fall for propaganda, I'm afraid.
I don't know where to look for unbiased research on drugs at this time. There is a lot of governmental pressure for the "anti" side.
They are battling over marijuana over there..
The drug problem is really complex.
I'd say extremely complex.
So, let's not jump to conclusions.
We have data that demonstrates that many anti-drug laws are counter productive.
What we need is level headed research.
What we need is more science.
In the meantime, we should look to other countries and see what they are doing, and how they are doing.
I don't think you are advocating for banning all opiates, are you?
If there is a problem, we should fix it.
That goes without saying.
I am not saying we should ban all opiates. There may be certain prescribed drugs that need taking off the market as the statistics show that they are causing problems or bad side effects as we have seen with some of the anti-depressant drugs for example that cause people to become more depressed and suicidal. It is all about control and prescription drugs are out of control at the moment as acknowledge by all the leading health authorities.
I don't know what you mean by battling marijuana. Some states in the US are legalising it. It may be good for certain medical uses but I am not sure about legalising it for recreational use. But that's another debate topic. You can look for reliable statistics for prescription drug use from the organisations that deal with the problem such as community organisations and their industry representatives such as the Black Dog Institute, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Wesley Research Institute etc. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main ... ebsite.pdf
Or the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare (ACSQHC), Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), Australian Medical Association (AMA), Better Health Channel etc. http://www.healthissuescentre.org.au/im ... sector.pdf
All these organisations are independent, use evidence-based research and are only interested in the health of the people they focus on and finding solutions.
The only vested interest I can see is the pressure exerted from the big business pharma companies for the medical industry to use their products with financial incentives. There is overwhelming evidence for this. Is your prescribed medicine really the best option? https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-bo ... nce-on-gps
So, I wonder why doctors seem to be over-prescribing opioids?
There will be a number of reasons such as mentioned above with influence of big pharma companies, the need for quick fixes in modern life, an easy option for dealing with complex problems, pressure from patients who are already addicted or dependent on pills, money in that a doctor can see more patients in a shorter time and therefore increase their payments and income.
Easy fixes isn't the answer to complex problems.
Drugs in our society is an extremely complex problem.
I agree.
It irritates me to no end that so many people seem to have all kinds of EASY answers to extremely complex problems. People like Donald Trump come to mind.
Apparently, he has all the answers to just about everything.
Maybe you can ask him how to solve this one.
( I'm confident you'd get an answer, by the way )
That is another topic for another time and one which covers a bunch of areas. But the people seemed to have voted Trump in. Whether that was based on a con job is up to the people to decide. He may have appealed to people by telling them what they wanted to hear or by just being different to the main political parties. It probably speaks more about how voters are sick of the bull that comes from the main parties more than anything else. So there all much the same.
stevevw wrote:
Firstly I am not talking about science in general and have not said anything about science in general.
I didn't write "science in general". I wrote "medical scientists".
And medical science is a part of "science" in general.
I think both of us were talking about some form of science, right?
OK I will keep this in mind. But I am not sure that all medical industry is based in science. Big pharma companies when promoting their products are not too concerned about the science in getting people to buy their products. Doctors wanting to make more money by handing out more pills are not too worried about the science.
You were mentioning alternative medicine, my friend.
Like herbal remedies, perhaps?
Chinese medicine?
Acupuncture?
Homeopathy?
Chakra healing?
Say WHAT now?
Here is a quote from a "holistic" ( read alternative ) health website where we can get all the information about all the scientific non-mainstream, alternative substances and practices that good money can buy:
"Site owner is a certified Holistic Health Practitioner. (HHP) This is NOT a medical license of ANY KIND. We simply share information with you. All of the information presented here regarding holistic health products or alternative medicine is public information. We have discovered some of the highest quality products and want to share them with everyone we know. "
Is this the kind of alternative "frequency rising" you want people to get?
I was thinking more along the lines of the main alternatives to pills such as counselling, Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), stress management, relaxation therapy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, naturopathy, pain management techniques and the use of nutritionists and dietitians. These are all well-known and well-used methods that replace the need for pills. Other methods such as acupuncture, herbal remedies, meditation, chiropractic, and spiritual therapies are not as well known but still there is some research that shows they can have good results.
The important point is to take a holistic approach and not concentrate on one method. Often medication can be used in combination with other methods such as anti-depressant medication and counselling or anxiety medication and relation therapy. But to only use pills as the only way to deal with these problems is a short sighted and quick fix mentality.
One of the big areas I have a disagreement with is the methadone program and other replacement medications to get off addictive illegal drugs. Many people have shown that they can become drug-free through detox and rehabilitation. Methadone may be OK for a short time but sooner or later you have to become drug-free and rehabilitate. But what happens is people stay of methadone for years and its just another drug to become addicted to.
The fact that there is a problem with opioid addiction doesn't automatically imply you know the reason for it, my friend. Nice guess, though.
I think your limiting the science you say is able to find these things out. Addiction has been around for a long time and we should have a pretty good idea by now about why people get addicted. There is the physical addiction which can be helped with medication but then you need the longer term therapy of rehabilitation which involves therapy and learning to live without drugs.
You seem to be advocating for more alternative medicine.
That seems to be your solution, but I'm not too sure.
Sometimes, you seem to say yes, and then sometimes, no.
Hard to fathom your actual position, quite frankly.
Maybe you are reading more into it than there is. I think we are approaching the same issue from different perspectives and that is why you may feel I am against medication. You may be taking things to an extreme by thinking because someone is against too much medication they are against medication all together.
stevevw wrote:
I am talking about common sense alternatives like lifestyle changes, therapy, diet, nutrition, naturopathy, counselling and spirituality etc.
You might have to convince everyone to not take the most effective, easiest, cheapest pain medicine first.
Yes that is the whole point. To make people aware and show that there are other ways to deal with the same problem or alternatives that can work in combination with medication.
I just had a heart operation, let me tell you I didn't care for the spiritual healing, my friend.
I wanted my opiates.
Meditation wasn't going to work for me.
I have not said that medication is the right circumstances is not warranted. Jumping from medication to spiritual therapy is being very restrictive. There are other methods that can play a part such as exercise, diet, relaxation etc when it comes to heart health. Heart disease is a lifestyle issue and that means that non-medicative alternatives are what is going to help people avoid it. If people are offered ways of becoming healthier through non-medicated methods then they will not need the pills in the first place. A good example is how some people have been able to move off medication by living a healthier life. This should be the aim for most people instead of just excepting that they will stay on medication all the time.
stevevw wrote:
All these methods have proven helpful but take time and it seems that by using medication all the time it is taking the quick and easy way out.
Helpful... great, then you take these so very "helpful" methods.
I wanted my opiates, thank you very much.
There is no virtue in taking the hard way out.
A rational person should prefer the easiest way out, instead.[/quote] Fair enough, each person has a right to choose how they want to live. It does make sense, in taking the harder option as it reaps more benefits in the end. The easier option especially for prescribed medication is causing a bigger problem that will need more hard work to deal with. So it ends up costing more by taking the easy way out.
Then lets get more psychologists why don't we... who is going to pay for that? There's only so much money in the world.
Your doing your best to put obstacles in the way of progress. It does not just have to be about psychologists. It can be counsellors or having supportive friends and communities. The community centre I work at only charges $10 for a concession for counselling or no charge is they cannot afford it. The point is its not just one way it may be a combination and many are cost-free such as exercise, diet, lifestyle changes. Good doctors will promote this. The system should have referrals to other methods. Some do now with psychologists, physiotherapists, nutritionists etc.
Yes, some people get anxious, don't they?
So, you want them to not ]seek the best kind of help?
The best kind of help in the end is not pills for anxiety. Look at the famous people recently that have died from the abuse of prescribed medication, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson and Prince come to mind.
There is no virtue in taking the hard way out.
I call that way inefficient and very wrong-headed.
Then why do we have such a big problem with the overuse of prescribed medication. It seems that the easy way out is what has caused the problem.
But please, don't pretend to have all the answers.
I think that kind of over-simplification can do more harm than good.
This is an EXTREMELY complex problem.
To imagine an easy answer or a quick one is completely unreasonable.
Not a happy cat.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. I am merely repeating the problem identified by the experts. The first stepp to even being able to find the answers is to admit there is a problem. Something you seem to not want to do.
Sure, let's give everyone good counselling and a good friend they can talk to. I think it should be free, because most people who are in trouble with drugs also have money problems.
Yes so now we are looking at part of the solution and the solution to having no money is not medication. It is a complex fix but it has to start somewhere. If everyone gets on the same page and does their part then it makes it a little easier. Offering a way out of drugs first so that a person can become coherent and manageable enough to be in a position to earn more money is a start. But to throw your hand up and give in and say its all too hard so lets just continue the same old existence does not do anything except create more misery.
