Don't like the implications?

[juvenissun]

If you study modern epidemiology seriously, you'll find evolution playing a significant role in those studies, e.g. in the epidemiology of dengue-3, HIV/AIDS, influenza A, multidrug resistant TB, anthrax, listeria, and many other common viral and bacterial pathogens.

So, you treat virus A with drug a. Then it changed to virus B. Then you treat it with drag b. And it changed to virus C. Now, how to you use something unique in evolution to deal with this situation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, you treat virus A with drug a. Then it changed to virus B. Then you treat it with drag b. And it changed to virus C. Now, how to you use something unique in evolution to deal with this situation?

That's really not how it works.

 

[juvenissun]

"If a model explains our observations, makes novel predictions that are found to be correct, is testable and falsifiable in many ways, but has passed all tests and not been falsified in over 150 years of exploration and experiment, has multiple independent lines of supporting evidence, explains a wide range of diverse phenomena,....

That is not true. What is testable? I do not know anything suggested by evolution is ever testable.

 

[Speedwell]

That is not true. What is testable? I do not know anything suggested by evolution is ever testable.

LOL! Haven't you been reading any posts on this thread but your own? There have been some good links, too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The part of convenience.

Waddayamean?
Can you be specific for once in your life?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What practical purpose? The idea of evolution has no practical use.

Except in genetics, agriculture, medicine,...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These are all textbook talks. No practical use. When it hits real data, the theory collapsed.

How would you know? You JUST said a couple posts ago that you don't have the required expertise to understand the real data as presented in the technical papers...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not true. What is testable? I do not know anything suggested by evolution is ever testable.

lol...

That's because you refuse to inform yourself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, you treat virus A with drug a. Then it changed to virus B. Then you treat it with drag b. And it changed to virus C. Now, how to you use something unique in evolution to deal with this situation?

That's evolution of drug resistance, which isn't specifically an epidemiological issue (although it's relevant). If you think knowledge of the evolution of drug resistance is of no use in predicting and dealing with the evolution of drug resistance, I don't think I can help you. As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

As for evolution in epidemiology, the information is at your fingertips if you know how to use a search engine. Here's a taster: Evolutionary epidemiology.

 

[juvenissun]

That's evolution of drug resistance, which isn't specifically an epidemiological issue (although it's relevant). If you think knowledge of the evolution of drug resistance is of no use in predicting and dealing with the evolution of drug resistance, I don't think I can help you. As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

As for evolution in epidemiology, the information is at your fingertips if you know how to use a search engine. Here's a taster: Evolutionary epidemiology.

I don't read that link because I am not in that field. Either you tell me a summary or key point. or else.

This kind of short-period prediction on biological change DOES NOT need anything from the idea of evolution. As I said, SIMPLE LOGIC will do it perfectly. If an animal of four legs lost one leg each month, after three legs missed, we CAN predict the fourth one will be gone in one month. That is NOT a use of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't read that link because I am not in that field. Either you tell me a summary or key point. or else.

Or else what?

This kind of short-period prediction on biological change DOES NOT need anything from the idea of evolution. As I said, SIMPLE LOGIC will do it perfectly. If an animal of four legs lost one leg each month, after three legs missed, we CAN predict the fourth one will be gone in one month. That is NOT a use of evolution.

No, your simple logic does nothing. You don't even have any logic to use.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't read that link because I am not in that field. Either you tell me a summary or key point. or else.

Spoon feeding is for infants. If you were really interested you'd make an effort to educate yourself instead of relying on arguments from ignorance. When you're spoon fed digestible chunks you complain it's over-simplified, and if you're given links to detailed material you complain it's too advanced.

This kind of short-period prediction on biological change DOES NOT need anything from the idea of evolution. As I said, SIMPLE LOGIC will do it perfectly. If an animal of four legs lost one leg each month, after three legs missed, we CAN predict the fourth one will be gone in one month. That is NOT a use of evolution.

That's a trite straw man; no-one is surprised that a non-evolutionary situation doesn't involve evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Spoon feeding is for infants. If you were really interested you'd make an effort to educate yourself instead of relying on arguments from ignorance. When you're spoon fed digestible chunks you complain it's over-simplified, and if you're given links to detailed material you complain it's too advanced.

That's a trite straw man; no-one is surprised that a non-evolutionary situation doesn't involve evolution.

I am here to take infant food. However I still can tell good food from bad food.

If you care to learn geology, I will try to feed you some nutritious infant food.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you care to learn geology, I will try to feed you some nutritious infant food.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not here to learn geology.

 

[Kylie]

Regarding the OP (I haven't read through 16 pages...)

http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/09/04/a-creationist-mole-and-a-sorry-mess/

 

[Paul Finch]

You insist that evolution is true, even you are not a biological scientist.

Because it's the only thing that makes sense, unless you believe in magic.
Even if evolution was not a fact what difference would it make to a God claim?

 

[Speedwell]

Because it's the only thing that makes sense, unless you believe in magic.
Even if evolution was not a fact what difference would it make to a God claim?

It's not a claim about God, it's a claim about the Bible which is at issue.

 

[Radagast]

Regarding the OP (I haven't read through 16 pages...)

http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/09/04/a-creationist-mole-and-a-sorry-mess/

That's a little out of date. The university pretty clearly did the wrong thing firing this guy: he was well-qualified for his specific job (with extensive experience in optical and electron microscopy), he did his specific job well (by all accounts), he wasn't fired for reasons of misconduct, and the stated reason for getting rid of him (lack of funds) was contradicted by them immediately hiring somebody else. Consequently, the university settled out of court for $400,000.

 

[Radagast]

That's evolution of drug resistance, which isn't specifically an epidemiological issue (although it's relevant). If you think knowledge of the evolution of drug resistance is of no use in predicting and dealing with the evolution of drug resistance, I don't think I can help you.

I'd like to see you make that case. Evolutionary theory tells us why drug resistance happens, but does it have any predictive value? I find nothing in the literature saying so. Indeed, this paper says "We also cannot anticipate, among all the conceivable mechanisms of resistance, which will emerge first under natural conditions."

As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

Abuse is not a substitute for intelligent debate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd like to see you make that case. Evolutionary theory tells us why drug resistance happens, but does it have any predictive value? I find nothing in the literature saying so. Indeed, this paper says "We also cannot anticipate, among all the conceivable mechanisms of resistance, which will emerge first under natural conditions."

We may not be able to anticipate which resistance mechanisms will emerge first, but evolutionary profiling, including mutation rates, incidence of virulent strains, transmission mechanisms, frequency & type of species jumping, rate of change of infectiousness, and so-on, based on correlations between genetics and epidemiological data, all help anticipate which populations are at risk, which bugs to preferentially target, where to focus infection control, etc., etc.

Much of the prophylactic work on HIV, bird flu, influenza, TB, MRSA, and other infectious diseases uses evolutionary genetics to target resources.

There are even postgraduate courses on it, e.g. MRes Biomedical Research - Epidemiology, Evolution and Control of Infectious Diseases

Abuse is not a substitute for intelligent debate.

It's not an insult, it simply means that no-one else can understand things for you, it's something you have to do yourself.