proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Perhaps you could answer his challenge then and give one example of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine.

A few people have already answered this - but progress in the medical sciences are made by understanding and employing the Theory of Evolution. An MD could, I guess, stay in his medical practice bubble and just spend his career metering out prescriptions and referring serious illnesses to specialists to do the heavy lifting, not contributing to the sciences in any way besides consuming the products of that endeavour... it doesn't take away the fact that the Theory of Evolution does indeed produce the goods in terms of results and progress.

Yeah that's why he quit... the money. Probably why William Fay quit his executive position, got out of the legal prostitution racket, and left the mafia and gambling casinos too. Cuz preaching pays so much better.

Upton Sinclair has a great quote that's entirely appropriate for professional creationists - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - let's face it, being a professional creationists often pays as well if not better than being an MD (you know, with all those Doctor responsibilities, checks & balances and ongoing training to remain relevant)... Heck, you can even claim falsehoods as fact and it won't land you in jail, or worse, cobble you with a malpractice suit! there's a dearth of critical thinking skills in America that make Creation Charlatry (along with faith healing, etc) more than economically feasible as a profession, it is in fact, quite a lucrative career option.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

not according to this:

"The apparent absence of Alx3 in frog, chick, and lizard is intriguing. To test whether this reflects a true gene loss, or just incomplete data, we examined genome sequences for these species. Sequence searching using blast failed to identify orthologs of this gene in the draft genomes for any of the three species."

so they dont find them at all.

They do find what's left of the gene as explained in the very next sentence, what they don't find is a functioning alx3 gene. From Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene :

"More conclusive evidence came from examination of the genomic regions deduced to be syntenic to those harboring the Alx3 gene in human, mouse, and zebrafish (Fig. 2). In all three cases—frog, chick, and lizard—we found clear syntenic regions containing orthologs of many of the genes surrounding Alx3 in human, mouse, and zebrafish"
​

Highlighting mine. So what they found was that the gene function had been lost independently and that the remaining genetic info of the gene and surrounding genetics were Orthological in this region of the chromosome!

**EDIT: It even says so in clear terms further down in the same section of the paper...:

"It is clear, therefore, the Alx3 gene has been lost in evolution from the genomes of frog (X. tropicalis), lizard (A. carolinensis), and chicken (G. gallus). The known phylogenetic relationships between species possessing Alx3 and species lacking Alx3 reveal that these have been independent losses."​

so clearly you've misunderstood what was being said.

are you sure?

As demonstrated, Yep!

 

[BradB]

If the dude did not acknowledge the role of evolution in both biology and medical science, he has some serious blinders on regarding reality. Protecting a specific personal faith belief when well evidenced reality contradicts it, is a full time job, keeping those defense mechanisms working.

I think he makes a very valid point. If modern medicine is predicated upon the ToE then it behooves those making this claim to back it up. However since we know that there is not a single documented example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another, nor a single example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial gene increasing type information to the genome of a multi celled organism, then I can't see how it could.

 

[BradB]

Reread my prior response. A lot of that will come down to what 'practice' means in this context; usually practicing medicine is what something like a GP or other doctor would do involving prescribing medicine or other treatments. Whereas the medical research side is where evolution can be utilized.

And that's the question I was asking. Just how does believing all life has a common ancestor aid the research?

 

[BradB]

The first vaccinations were developed in the 1700s. Evolution wasn't a scientific theory yet.

Yes Bingo! And yet it was presented as an example to me... why is that?

 

[BradB]

But the MD said you don't need evolution to practice modern medicine. Those first vaccines pre-date modern medicine.

Would you like to try again?

Yes Bingo! And yet it was presented as an example to me... why is that?

 

[BradB]

what?

You made a proposition, you are the one who is obligated to support that proposition through evidence.

This is why YECs arent dominant in the scientific community right here. I am challenging you to defend your words. If you truly believe them, you should not have trouble doing this.


A lot of young earthers make claims and dont back them up, then turn to me saying, "oh, you arent justifying your own claims".

Im a geologist, my research/work and the research of other scientists dominates the scientific community and dominates in schools around the world, and here in the US. I have nothing to prove. So i dont know why YECs try to flip the script without justifying their own claims.

No I said that the less advanced life is often found in the deeper strata layers and the more advanced shows up in the upper layers, which is what you would expect to find if they had all been deposited in one world wide global flood. However you made the claim that they are not found this way and you expected me to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. You get to prove your case. I will be more than happy to support mine but I won't run around trying to disprove yours.

 

[BradB]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
CA215: Practical uses of evolution.

The problem is that all cases presented here are predicated only on the kind of change that creationists likewise fully accept and acknowledge (with the exception of how the changes occurred). They do not rely on the notion that all life has a common ancestor.

 

[bhsmte]

I think he makes a very valid point. If modern medicine is predicated upon the ToE then it behooves those making this claim to back it up. However since we know that there is not a single documented example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another, nor a single example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial gene increasing type information to the genome of a multi celled organism, then I can't see how it could.

Keep those blinders on.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think he makes a very valid point. If modern medicine is predicated upon the ToE then it behooves those making this claim to back it up. However since we know that there is not a single documented example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another, nor a single example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial gene increasing type information to the genome of a multi celled organism, then I can't see how it could.

I guess you'll just have to trust those who study this the most, then. It's a bit beyond your skill-set, if you will.

 

[HitchSlap]

The problem is that all cases presented here are predicated only on the kind of change that creationists likewise fully accept and acknowledge (with the exception of how the changes occurred). They do not rely on the notion that all life has a common ancestor.

No, it's not like this at all. You honestly don't know enough to be making these silly claims. You should be asking questions, not pretending to know the answers.

 

[BradB]

Keep those blinders on.

Well that's a pretty safe and easy reply for you, isn't it?

 

[BradB]

I guess you'll just have to trust those who study this the most, then. It's a bit beyond your skill-set, if you will.

Oh I do friend... I do.

I stand on the shoulders of some pretty remarkable scientists.

They got smarts real good.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh I do friend... I do.

I stand on the shoulders of some pretty remarkable scientists.

They got smarts real good.

Like who?

 

[bhsmte]

Well that's a pretty safe and easy reply for you, isn't it?

It is accurate. You have been supplied the information, but i do understand, it is way too painful for you to acknowledge. Hence, the need for blinders.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh I do friend... I do.

I stand on the shoulders of some pretty remarkable scientists.

They got smarts real good.

No, you don't. There isn't one relevant scientist in the creation franchise. Every one, to a man, lies to you.

It's like you snuck past security into Stephen Hawking's office, and you're telling him his equations on spacetime are wrong because you saw an episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle, where Peabody used the WayBack machine to time travel.

 

[Belk]

No I said that the less advanced life is often found in the deeper strata layers and the more advanced shows up in the upper layers, which is what you would expect to find if they had all been deposited in one world wide global flood. However you made the claim that they are not found this way and you expected me to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. You get to prove your case. I will be more than happy to support mine but I won't run around trying to disprove yours.

No it isn't. Why would a world wide flood resort in any kind of sorting. It should have all different kinds of creatures at the same layer.

 

[rjs330]

Genetics, no assumption required. The genetic evidence (even if we didn't have fossil remains, which of course we do) is an infinitely more reliable form of evidence than fossils, or for that matter archaeological evidence, or even the most unreliable kind, written down stories (for which we have all forms of evidence mentioned for dogs descending from wolves). Genetic evidence is irrefutable for rational people, this is why it's considered next to unassailable in a court of law. When it is contested, it's the method of collection & processing or a legal technicality that's contested, never the actual evidence itself. Curious though, are you saying that written records are assumptions? I would certainly agree with you if that's your stance...

Well, Kudos for trying, I guess... Although we are descended from fish and are nested in the clade that were fish (along with every other animal, of course), we've long diverged from fish enough that traits like 'fur' are considered unique to our lineage of mammals and defines our uniqueness among these living things. I fail to see how this falsifies evolution though, the same branching tree of life holds true, no matter how you want to view inherited traits. Fur is unique to 'mammals' section of the 'fish' tree and is not found in extant fish at all, so isn't actually a 'fish' trait. Equally, theropod dinosaurs are unique in their clade for (among many things) their feathers. Again though, this is not pervasive in fish, just this small section of life that came from fish. All this said, I have no doubt you'll erect another straw man to beat on in short order... evidence and critical thinking be damned!

Calling genetics evidence of evolution from a common ancestor is based upon the presumptive idea that evolution from a common ancestor is true. It an assumption that states Evolution is true therefore genetics is evidence that evolution is true. Really all genetics only shows common design. You must have evidence beyond that which shows the theory to be accurate. And we don't all we have is assumption. That all things have the same building blocks of life is only evidence of common design. It is not evidence we all came from the same ancestor unless you believe we all came from a common ancestor.

That we diverged from fish is an assumption. There is no evidence of that actually occurring.

 

[HitchSlap]

This opinion would certainly explain why the author got bat and bird mixed up, no?

Calling genetics evidence of evolution from a common ancestor is based upon the presumptive idea that evolution from a common ancestor is true. It an assumption that states Evolution is true therefore genetics is evidence that evolution is true. Really all genetics only shows common design. You must have evidence beyond that which shows the theory to be accurate. And we don't all we have is assumption. That all things have the same building blocks of life is only evidence of common design. It is not evidence we all came from the same ancestor unless you believe we all came from a common ancestor.

That we diverged from fish is an assumption. There is no evidence of that actually occurring.

 

[rjs330]

It's already been explained to you why your watch/robot/etc analogies are invalid. Repeating an invalid argument doesn't magically make it valid. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Unfortunately this seems to be a common trend among creationists here these days: keep repeating the same thing over and over until everyone is just sick of it.

Sounds like evolutionists.