Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Darwinian medicine is a dead loss

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations,” at Evolution News & Views (June 25, 2011), neurosurgeon Mike Egnor makes a critical distinction between proximate explanations and evolutionary explanations,s they apply to medicine:

Proximate explanations are the description of the process itself. A proximate explanation of type 1 diabetes is that it is caused by lack of insulin. A proximate explanation of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is that it is a recessive X-linked genetic disease that causes muscle degeneration, weakness and death. Males are affected, though females can be carriers. It is caused by a mutation in the dystrophin gene on the X chromosome (Xp21).

As you can see, proximate explanations are what medical researchers would call the scientific explanation for a disease. Proximate explanations are medical science and provide the foundation for all medical treatments.

[ … ]

The difficulty with evolutionary explanations in medicine is:

1) All of the relevant pathophysiology is provided by the proximate explanations, which are the only explanations useful for treatment.

There are other difficulties but that first one is the swish of Occam’s Razor, as far as medicine is concerned.

Takin’ it to the street: You tripped and sprained your ankle. What you need is a speculative history of the sprained ankle in vertebrates … not!

The principle question is, what is evolutionary medicine meant to do, given that it is no use in the normal sense?

Comments
Elizabeth: Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology By: Philip S. Skell Excerpt: A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way. – Doug Axe PhD. – video interview http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ further note: Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies – October 2010 Excerpt: “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve”.,,, as stated in regards to the 35 year experimental failure to fixate a single beneficial mutation within fruit flies.== Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html ========================== Whereas Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? – March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html In the last part of this following audio, Casey Luskin lays the evidence out for a Professor of evolution, who who has the audacity to challenge his students to come up with ‘ANY’ evidence for Intelligent Design: Evidence for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – July 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-16T13_26_24-07_00 I found this following paper particularly interesting for broadly outlining how evolution misses the mark for a true science and is, in reality, a pseudo-science: Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist Excerpt: “In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.”bornagain77
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, antibiotic resistance was observed irrespective of Darwinian evolution or predictions. We do not need Darwinian explanations for it, we can observe it and extrapolate from that point. In that light Darwinism did not provide us anything new that we did not see ourselves empirically. Even if we never heard of TOE, we'd still have figured it out. We'd have, because we have microbiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology, and other fields which do pretty well without TOE. Genetics per se is not based on a Darwinian framework. Genetics is an independent area of science. We owe more to Mendel in that department than Darwin. What we do need is more people to do proximal research and more funding.Puragu
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology By: Philip S. Skell Excerpt: A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one." I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - video interview http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ further note: Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies - October 2010 Excerpt: "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve".,,, as stated in regards to the 35 year experimental failure to fixate a single beneficial mutation within fruit flies. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 ========================== Whereas Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html In the last part of this following audio, Casey Luskin lays the evidence out for a Professor of evolution, who who has the audacity to challenge his students to come up with 'ANY' evidence for Intelligent Design: Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - July 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-16T13_26_24-07_00 I found this following paper particularly interesting for broadly outlining how evolution misses the mark for a true science and is, in reality, a pseudo-science: Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist Excerpt: "In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.”bornagain77
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Now, Lizzie, do you even know what "bacterial resistance" actually is? Careful now; you've strayed from your home turf.allanius
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
Purugu: antibiotics were discovered well after Darwin's theory was largely accepted. Darwin's account explains why we see antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and why it is important to "finish the course". My parents, both doctors, came into practice around the time when antibiotics came into widespread use (as an aside, my grandfather, an army pathologist, was the RAMC Major General responsible for deploying the scarces supplies of penicillin to troops during WWII!), and at my mother's knee (literally) I learned that she was worried that over-subscription of penicillin would lead to antibiotic resistance strains emerging, and that that was why it was important to "finish the course". As for your point about "proximal research" - of course it's important! But your assertion that "without Darwinian evolution we'd still be where we are, perhaps ahead..." I strongly disagree. Genetics research, for example, has been hugely important in many disorders, and genetics is firmly based in a Darwinian framework. As I pointed out - look at the epidemiology of sickle cell, for example.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Actually we've seen resistance emerge before any Darwinian explanations came along. In your other examples the payoff has always been in proximal research. Darwinian explanations follow later but are not really of much utility. Trust me, without proximal research and with only Darwinian evolution we'd be in the middle ages. Without Darwinian evolution we'd still be where we are, perhaps ahead for we'd have more resources for proximal work.Puragu
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
Well, there you are. A practical and useful application of Darwinian evolution in the way patients are instructed to take their meds. Here are other examples: understanding the causes of obesity; lactose intolerance; stress-related disease in sedentary people; epidemiology of sickle cell disease; diabetes. In all these fields, an understanding of distal Darwinian evolutionary process can help make sense of proximal causes of disorders.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Micro-evolution is directly observable though. No one doubts this.Puragu
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
To understand bacterial resistance without a "replication with variance plus natural selection" model seems pretty difficult. Also, the entire principle of "take the full course of antibiotics even though you may feel better before the end of the course" is predicated on the principle that failing to kill all the bugs will lead to selective survival of the most resistant, and thus to the evolution of multiply-resistant strains. Without the principle, you would have no basis for the advice, surely? I assume you give it?Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
I am both a clinician and a researcher and have never found Darwinism of any use in my work. It's not to say that it can't be of any use ever but the current problem is funding and many different proximate routes to follow. Even in areas such as studying HIV resistance patterns we look at proximate explanations.Puragu
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
The answer is that it is useful in research, not necessarily in clinical practice. In clinical practice, as Egnor says, all you need are proximal explanations. But distal explanations are often helpful in research for even arriving at proximal explanations.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
In my 30 years practicing medicine I have never found Darwinian evolution helpful in any way.idnet.com.au
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply