Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?

_{Salvador Cordova

March 12, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Dr. Michael Egnor:

No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a contribution which has brought shameÃ¢â‚¬â€not advanceÃ¢â‚¬â€to the medical field.

So Ã¢â‚¬ËœWhy would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. Evolutionary biology isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t important to modern medicine. That answer wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t win the Ã¢â‚¬ËœAlliance for ScienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ prize. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just the truth.

Comments

great_ape, at the risk of being repetitive, let me re-quote Dr. Engor:
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
As you are suggesting that the good Dr. is in error because portions of biology which are in the "evolutionary biology" camp have medical application, portions that the good Dr. acknowledged before you set him straight, I figure the repeat is justified. If you take evolutionary biology, subtract "Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology", in the remainder you will find the portion of evolutionary biology that Dr. Engor rejects.bFast_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Call it microevolution if you will, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s evolution, and it ultimately traces back to DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s insights. Egnor would seem to imply that these genetics areas can be surgically isolated and sanitized from Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â as such. I don't care to give a subtle, nuanced reply. I'll only point out that Darwin believed in blended inheritance; he thought that the environment in some way affected reproductive organs, which in turn caused variation. Where would NS and supposed "evolution" be without DNA, without modern genetic principles? Nowhere. One can begin to understand the "fitness" value of supposed NS and "evolution" from allele frequencies and transmission and such, but an understanding of the underlying mathematical principles would lead you in that direction on their own. Let me not dismiss Darwin in his entirety, but, please, is he some kind of savior of biology? Isn't he,as Egnor points out, really just the father of eugenics?PaV_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

great_ape, No one disputes micro-evolution. There is no argument there. There is no argument over the concept of natural selection or other factors that affect the distribution of alleles from generation to generation in a population. We all know the argument is over something else. Do you think NCSE or PZ Meyers would calm down if everyone at ID said we have no problem with micro-evolution or natural selection. Everyone at NCSE knows that ID accepts micro-evolution, natural selection etc. and PZ Meyers and his associates know the same. Larry Moran knows that. Dawkins knows that. So why all the heat. Everyone knows that the meaning of evolution that is being fought over is how novel alleles are generated and the origin of life itself. So when the words are brought up in a contentious discussion that and that alone is the topic that is really being discussed. Now other topics do come up that are not the generation of new alleles. For example, how fast can alleles fix themselves in a population is one that is often discussed but that is not the real issue. This has relevance if novel alleles have enough time to become fixed and become separate species to match what is seen in the fossil record but the real discussion is always over the origin of new alleles.jerry_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

"Yes, and this work is based on the law of segregtion as discovered by Mendel, a priest. WhatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s this got to do with Darwin, or Darwinian theory?" The modern process of hunting down and identifying disease alleles as well as related population/pharmacogenomic studies are *much* more sophisticated than simply understanding the principles of segregation. In fact, independent segregation can be grossly violated by meiotic drive loci, which are only properly understood in the context of natural selection and evolution. State of the art medical genetics techniques integrate concepts like the the formation and breakdown of haplotypes (groups of linked alleles) over evolutionary time periods in ancestral humans, as well as admixture between ancient populations, stochastic fluctuation of allele frequencies, etc,etc. Call it microevolution if you will, but it's evolution, and it ultimately traces back to Darwin's insights. Egnor would seem to imply that these genetics areas can be surgically isolated and sanitized from "evolution" as such. That comes across as false to anyone actively working in these fields. It is false on both practical terms and in terms of the historical development of the methods, and this indicates to me a)his complete ignorance on the matters of genetics in question--which, if he's like the physicians I am familiar with, represents a likely scenario or b) his willful bending of the definition of "evolution" to exclude anything of medical utility. Again, we are not arguing about deep macroevolution vs. recent microevolution; Egnor is speaking about the relevance of "evolution" as such to modern medicine and medical genetics. And if we are to treat that word as it is normally used, it encompasses both micro and macroevolution so the incorrectness of his statements is not mitigated by rehearsing the differences in micro vs. macro-evolution. If he wanted to distinguish micro from macro-evolution he could have; instead, he chose dismiss evolution in one big lump.great_ape_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Edit sorry not "doctoring" and I meant no PS innervation on the Blood vessels themselves if you didnt catch thatjpark320_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Okay, For someone who is currently studying medicine right now (literally i have a test on friday), a reason why you don't want your doctoring studying evolution is 1) It has no practical application to our field. 2) You don't want ppl who have limited time to expend there energy on a useless endeavor. 3) Evolution doesn't provide useful explanations. For instance there are muscarinic receptors (part of theparasympathetic system) on blood vessels, but no PS innervation. What's the answer in the NDE paradigm 1) Its an evolutionary anomaly w/ an unknown history of why its there and how it effects survival. Design paradigm 1) Let's figure out why its there and minimize any adverse effects that may come from using PS stimulants, or use it to our advantage.jpark320_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Fross, Medicine is applied biology, Engineering is applied physics, Software engineering (my field) is applied logic. I think there is a strong correlation between engineering and the big bang theory, and medicine and evolutionary biology. The big bang theory rarely enters into the practal application of physics that engineers care about, as evolutionary biology rarely enters into medicine. An engineer, however, as a richer, thicker view of what must transpire for the big bang to happen than does the non-engineer. Likewise the doctor has a richer, thicker view of what must transpire for biological evolution to happen. Now here's the rub. I bet bones that a survey of engineers would find a high acceptance of the big bang theory. Engineers are not uniting to say, "no way -- I am an engineer with a rich, thick understanding of what had to have happened for the big bang to take place -- it didn't happen!" Yet a significant number of doctors are saying the equivalent, "No way -- I am an applied biologist, with a rich, thick understand of what had to have happened for the neo-Darwinian evolution to have taken place -- it didn't happen!" The plumber says, "I just passed gas, is that a big bang, or evolution?"bFast_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Plumbers not Plubers.jerry_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Fross, I think the answer is obvious, Namely, that the doctors study biology in depth to do their jobs. Plubers don't. Duh!jerry_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

I saw a post earlier that was bragging about the large percentage of Doctors that dont' accept evolution. (30+%) Yet this post is saying that evolution doesn't need to be studied by Doctors because they have no use for it (let's just assume that's true even though I disagree), similar to the way plumbers don't have a use for it. If that's the case, why would any of us care what percentage of Doctors or plumbers accepted evolution theory?Fross_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

bdelloid: "The tools to identify disease genes in populations often rely on methods developed by evolutionary biologists." Yes, and this work is based on the law of segregtion as discovered by Mendel, a priest. What's this got to do with Darwin, or Darwinian theory? I'm sure doctors take classes on Genetics. I took one as well, and it was all about inheritance, not about Darwinism.PaV_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Two things, First, maybe one of the moderators delete the repeating messages. We have all done it by mistake some times. Second, can someone explain how can you refer to another UD thread without ending up in the moderaton filter. The only way I know is to copy the url and paste it in the message but every time it ends up in the abyss for awhile.jerry_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

bdelloid, You are talking about micro-evolution and no one in ID doubts micro-evolution. The fact that you use your examples actually supports the ID position. Go to the following link and read comment #28 https://uncommondescent.com/biology/michael-egnor-responds-to-michael-lemonick-at-time-online/ We go through this process every couple days here when someone challenges ID and all they can come up with is micro-evolution like it is some big thing. Thank you for making the ID position.jerry_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

What Dr Egnor is saying is that it is very unnecessary to medicine whether or not, for example, chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. That is because that premise is not demonstratable in a lab nor in the wild. Medicine, on the other hand, has to be demonstratble in a lab and in the wild. If not it doesn't get released to the public.Joseph_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

1, bdelloid "The tools to identify disease genes in populations often rely on methods developed by evolutionary biologists." You should first define what do you understand as "evolution". Genetic variation ? Novel function ? Novel organs ? Extinction ? IOW, if a method is developed by an evolutionary biologist, that doesn't mean that this guy just waited for a million years to pass and just observe some new methods emerged from Mother Nature... No, this guy used his INTELLIGENCE to test, to DESIGN, to develop a new method... Just because he is an evolutionist, doesn't mean that what he observed is "evolution in action"... May well be that he BELIEVED he saw... That's religion. Don't mix genetic variation matter with origin of life matter...Sladjo_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

1, bdelloid wrote: The tools to identify disease genes in populations often rely on methods developed by evolutionary biologists I find that hard to believe. Before you can identify a disease gene you first have to identify the disease. Next you have to decide whether it's a genetic disease or not (assuming it hasn't already been identified as such) usually by looking at the distribution of the disease within any given extended family. Doctors generally do all that. Finally, if the inheritance pattern makes it look as though the disease is probably transmitted genetically, and if there is some good reason to go to the expense of identifying the gene involved, the geneticists will be called in. Then they can do tests they've devised (during their research on genetics) on people at risk of having inherited these genes so that the afflicted can make decisions concerning whether or not to have children, when the total colectomy or bilateral mastectomy should be scheduled and so on and so forth. Evolutionary biologists may, I suspect, use the information gathered by population geneticists (using tools developed by ordinary geneticists) to make evolutionary inferences regarding how allele frequencies and distributions came to be the way they are now. That is, they are not scientists so much as they are scientifically trained philosopher historians who make inferences from information provided by scientists doing real research in many fields. On the other hand, as someone who trained in medicine, when I think of evolutionary biologists I think of people who decided things such as that the appendix is a vestigial organ in human beings - a left over from, say, the rumen of cows - or that the coccyx is all that is left of our ape-like ancestor's tail. These are the people who decided that such organs must be vestigial, are therefore not necessary for individual human survival and can be removed without consequence. But it turns out that the coccyx is important for holding our insides up. And it turns out that the appendix contains lymphoid tissue and could be important for preserving us from the effects of orally ingested pathogens. These facts were probably discovered by physiologists, anatomists, histologists, gastroenterologists, orthopaedic surgeons and so on. I very much doubt that evolutionary biologists had anything to do with this increase in our knowledge about the human body and the way it works.Janice_{March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

I wish both sides would clarify their terminology It seems to me that fuzzy terminology works to the benefit of the materialists; hence it is unlikely to change anytime soon. The term's relation to the concept of change over time via natural selection serves as an anchor, and is co-opted into big "E" evolution, aka neo-Darwinian evolution. To deny NDE then is to deny all definitions of evolution, which makes it easy to pigeon-hole NDE deniers into the creationist camp. I have noticed the ID crowd uses the term "neo-Darwinian evolution" to make the appropriate distinction, although it doesn't seem to resonate with the gen pop yet, and thus works effectively to the advantage of the NDE camp. It is interesting to note that even creationists believe in evolution, with a little "e," that species change over time. I myself am a creationist and a strong supporter of ID. Creationism, in my view, seeks to interpret observations of nature based on the special revelation found in the Bible, while ID remains in the realm of general revelation, i.e., those things observable in nature alone, with no SR starting point. Creationism will deny material origins of life, as well as the concept of common descent. ID on the other hand has no problem with common descent, only material origins, and that natural selection acting on random mutations can account for the diversity of living organisms. It would seem that from a procedural standpoint, neo-Darwinism has more in common with creationism than ID does; in that both creationism and NDE spring from a priori commitment to a philosophical viewpoint, and ID does not. Both creationism and neo-Darwinism must fit all data into a predetermined philosophical scaffold, where ID is free to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the accepted term by those adhering to NDE, and it's definition is well understood as not being limited to biological selection within species. Please forgive the length of this post, and the pedestrian definitions herein.Apollos_{March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

bfast, First, the reference I made was about population genetics. And this is precisely a subset of the field of evolutionary biology. Second, I don't really understand what he means by "evolutionary biology itself" independent of "population biology". There is no precise distinction at all between these fields. In fact, what does he mean by "population biology" ? Population genetics ? Ecology ? Sociology ? Anthropology ?bdelloid_{March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

"No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology." Out of curiousity, does this count: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1973/index.html I'm not disagreeing with the main premise of the article nor rejecting the letter in its entirety. Althought, our current flu vaccines are made based on the common strand from previous years and we supposedly figure out that from phylogenetic trees or so I've seen.:-)Apoptosis_{March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

bdelloid, if you read Dr. Engor's entire article, you will read,
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
bFast_{March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Why does Egnor refer to the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution as simply "evolution?" Egnor believes in evolution, but at http://www.pandasthumb.org they're calling him a creationist, because of his careless use of terminology. ID theorists believe in evolution, they are not creationists. But ant-ID groups insist ID is creationism, and that it opposes evolution. I wish both sides would clarify their terminologyrealpc_{March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

I have to say, just for the sake of correctness, that Dr. Egnor is wrong about this. Evolutionary biology and population genetics are in fact even becoming more important to medecine. The tools to identify disease genes in populations often rely on methods developed by evolutionary biologists. For example, see this page at the Broad Institute at MIT/Harvard: http://www.broad.mit.edu/mpg/ From this, I quote: Population genetics Patterns of genetic variation shed light on recombination, demography, admixture, and evolutionary selection in the human population. In turn, knowledge about human population history helps inform studies in medical genetics.bdelloid_{March 12, 2007
March
03
Mar
12
12
2007
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply