Posted on 08/18/2005 6:15:15 PM PDT by wagglebee
You know that TV crocodile hunting team Steve and Terri Irwin? Well those two can expect some competition in days to come. Scientists in northern Australia have been collecting blood from crocodiles in hopes of saving humans.
Studies in the late 90s showed that several antibodies in croc blood killed penicillin-resistant bacteria. More recently it has been discovered that crocodiles immune systems can kill the HIV virus. American scientist Mark Merchant says the reptiles tear limbs off each other, [but] they heal up very rapidly and normally, almost always without infection. Aussie scientist Adam Britton adds: The crocodile has an immune system which attaches to bacteria and tears it apart and it explodes. Its like putting a gun to the head of the bacteria and pulling the trigger.
These two scientists draw blood from wild and captive crocs, saltwater and freshwater species. After capturing the donor, they strap its jaws and go for a vein. The vein, Britton says, is called a sinus, right behind the head, and its very easy just to put a needle in the back of the neck and hit this sinus and then you can take a large volume of blood very simply.
Itll be years, of course, before croc blood is ready for human use. Their antibodies are so powerful they may have to be diluted. But this is pretty remarkable on two fronts. Once again, proof that embryonic stem cells arent the only miracle cure for all that ails us. And more importantly, understanding how crocodiles heal points to a pretty intelligent design in nature. Now when are the animal rights people going to start complaining to stop all of this?
I made no claim that was a scientific intelligent design argument. That would not be taught under ID. It was response to the claim that the universe could not be less than millions of years old. ID makes no claims about the age of the universe. So you don't have to start telling your friends that's what is taught under intelligent design.
Having said that, it is still a logically irrefutible statement. If you have a refutation you should tell it to me.
Where did you prove that?
post #116.
I believe in God the Creator. How He chose to create his world I honestly don't know nor do I care lie awake at night caring about.
I take it on faith the He knows what he's doing. It makes for a much more peaceful existence.
Behe and others believe the alternative explanation is a designer. So if you want to say the alternative explanation is not scientific in the strictest sense, I'll concede that, although I agree it implies a creator. I think an argument could be made that evolution is not scientific in the strictest sense either.
The correct statement reads: ID in general, including Behe's irreducible complexity, says the laws of physics are INSUFFICIENT to account for evolutionary PROCESSES. Behe's argument is also unscientific, because it is a calculation based on a model with incomplete information, that concludes, in essence, that there is incomplete information.
" I think an argument could be made that evolution is not scientific in the strictest sense either."
It is in the strictest sense, science.
Dear Wag:
Embryonic stem cells can actually cause cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.