Icons of Evolution

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-07T04:45:25-0500

Buzzard3 said:
Do germs cause disease?

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T06:48:32-0500

Shemjaza said:
Evolutionary theory is used for tracking changes it's also function as a guide for examining animals. Genetics is one pathway and inherited traits are understood via the demonstrated mechanisms of evolution.

... none of which depends on the theory of common descent (ie, all life on earth descended from a common ancestor).

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-07T07:48:50-0500

Buzzard3 said:
... none of which depends on the theory of common descent.

Knowing how inherited traits work doesn't depend on the theory of common descent...

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T09:18:54-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Knowing how inherited traits work doesn't depend on the theory of common descent...

Exactly. The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless to medical research and every other form of applied science.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-07T10:15:42-0500

Buzzard3 said:
Exactly. The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless to medical research and every other form of applied science.

No, my comment was made in disbelief that you could say that in all seriousness when it's a contradictory statement.

Though saying that, maybe you can actually explain HOW and WHY the theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless to medical research and every other form of applied science. Saying it is and showing why it is are two very different things after all.

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T12:06:18-0500

AV1611VET said:
Privately???

What I should have said is, all atheist scientists privately believe that the theory of evolution is the truth, but publicly they say they accept ToE as the best available scientific explanation.

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T12:31:14-0500

Jerry N. said:
View attachment 367173

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

"According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline ...

Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”"

What are the Religious Views of Leading Scientists Who Support Evolution?

Although the idea of “theistic evolution” receives plenty of attention from the newsmedia, it clearly represents a fringe position among leading biologists. According to a 1998 survey of members of…

www.discovery.org

"In Ã¢â‚¬Å“Evolution, Religion and Free WillÃ¢â‚¬Â� (American Scientist, Volume 95, 294ff), Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine found that, of 149 eminent evolutionists polled, 78% were pure naturalists (no God) and only two were clearly theists (traditional idea of God) ...

They note that the evolutionary biologists scored the lowest so far in any such poll. They described the vast majority of their respondents as Ã¢â‚¬Å“metaphysical naturalistsÃ¢â‚¬Â�, Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialistsÃ¢â‚¬Â�, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“monistsÃ¢â‚¬Â�. In other words, these are people who are serious about their materialism and atheism."

Evolutionary biologists: Allstar atheists, apparently, or — very occasionally — teddy bears for Jesus | Uncommon Descent

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T12:38:19-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, my comment was made in disbelief that you could say that in all seriousness when it's a contradictory statement.

Though saying that, maybe you can actually explain HOW and WHY the theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless to medical research and every other form of applied science. Saying it is and showing why it is are two very different things after all.

Please provide an example of how the theory that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor has proven useful in medical science.

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T12:45:25-0500

sjastro said:
The development of new antibiotics to combat the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria provides an excellent example of the application of the theory of evolution.

Aspect Evolutionary Principle How Pathogens Use It to Evolve Resistance Specific Ancestor Example How Medicine Uses Evolution to Counter Resistance
Mutation Random genetic change introduces variation Spontaneous mutations in bacterial genes confer resistance (e.g., rpsL) Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv (pre-streptomycin) Screen for naturally occurring bacterial compounds (e.g., streptomycin); use mutagenesis to find weak spots in bacteria
Natural Selection Fitter variants survive and reproduce Drug-resistant strains survive treatment and dominate Staphylococcus aureus 8325-4 (pre-penicillin resistance) Use high-throughput evolution models to simulate resistance and pre-select drugs less likely to fail
Variation within Populations Genetic diversity affects survival outcomes Resistant subpopulations survive while others die Mycobacterium tuberculosis wild strains (mixed katG variants) Tailor combination therapy (e.g., rifampin + isoniazid) to minimize survival of diverse resistant clones
Adaptation Populations evolve to changing environments Enterococcus faecium evolves vancomycin resistance via vanA genes E. faecium DO (vancomycin-sensitive) Develop next-generation antibiotics targeting new pathways (e.g., linezolid targeting protein synthesis)
Survival of the Fittest Most fit reproduce in the new environment MDR strains outcompete sensitive ones in drug-rich environments Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883 Rotate or cycle antibiotics in hospitals to reduce selective pressure on any one resistance trait
Selective Pressure Environmental conditions shape evolution Antibiotic overuse selects resistant bacteria E. coli K-12 (pre-fluoroquinolone resistance) Use antimicrobial stewardship to reduce unnecessary pressure; limit broad-spectrum drug use
Co-evolution Interacting species evolve in response Bacteria develop β-lactamases, we develop β-lactamase inhibitors H. influenzae Rd KW20 (non–β-lactamase producer) Design inhibitors (e.g., clavulanic acid) based on enzyme evolution structure modeling
Evolutionary Arms Race Ongoing adaptations between rivals Pathogens modify surface proteins to evade immunity Bordetella pertussis Tohama I Continuously update vaccine components (e.g., DTaP formulation changes) to match new variants
Genetic Drift / Gene Flow Random changes & horizontal gene transfer Resistance genes spread across species (e.g., CTX-M plasmids) E. coli K-12 & Klebsiella MGH 78578 (pre-ESBL) Use genomic surveillance to monitor plasmid transmission and inform targeted antibiotic policies
Predictive Power of Evolution Evolutionary models can forecast change Streptococcus pneumoniae shifts to non-vaccine serotypes S. pneumoniae D39 (serotype 2) Predict future mutations and preemptively design mRNA or conjugate vaccines (e.g., PCV13, mRNA COVID-19 updates)

... none of which depend on the theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor.

Fervent · 2025-07-07T13:07:42-0500

Buzzard3 said:
"According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline ...

Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”"

What are the Religious Views of Leading Scientists Who Support Evolution?

Although the idea of “theistic evolution” receives plenty of attention from the newsmedia, it clearly represents a fringe position among leading biologists. According to a 1998 survey of members of…

www.discovery.org

"In Ã¢â‚¬Å“Evolution, Religion and Free WillÃ¢â‚¬Â� (American Scientist, Volume 95, 294ff), Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine found that, of 149 eminent evolutionists polled, 78% were pure naturalists (no God) and only two were clearly theists (traditional idea of God) ...

They note that the evolutionary biologists scored the lowest so far in any such poll. They described the vast majority of their respondents as Ã¢â‚¬Å“metaphysical naturalistsÃ¢â‚¬Â�, Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialistsÃ¢â‚¬Â�, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“monistsÃ¢â‚¬Â�. In other words, these are people who are serious about their materialism and atheism."

Evolutionary biologists: Allstar atheists, apparently, or — very occasionally — teddy bears for Jesus | Uncommon Descent

This reminds me of the old adage about lies, [big] lies, and statistics. There's clear monkeying with the numbers to drive a narrative. But let's get out the pitchforks.

sjastro · 2025-07-07T13:18:06-0500

Buzzard3 said:
... none of which depend on the theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor.

Regretfully you can't stick to the same story as I was responding to this.

Buzzard3:
A theory that attempts to describe the process that produced the history of life isn't "exceedingly useful" in producing medications ... it's exceedingly useless.

Here is the table again for reference.

Aspect	Evolutionary Principle	How Pathogens Use It to Evolve Resistance	Specific Ancestor Example	How Medicine Uses Evolution to Counter Resistance
Mutation	Random genetic change introduces variation	Spontaneous mutations in bacterial genes confer resistance (e.g., rpsL)	Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv (pre-streptomycin)	Screen for naturally occurring bacterial compounds (e.g., streptomycin); use mutagenesis to find weak spots in bacteria
Natural Selection	Fitter variants survive and reproduce	Drug-resistant strains survive treatment and dominate	Staphylococcus aureus 8325-4 (pre-penicillin resistance)	Use high-throughput evolution models to simulate resistance and pre-select drugs less likely to fail
Variation within Populations	Genetic diversity affects survival outcomes	Resistant subpopulations survive while others die	Mycobacterium tuberculosis wild strains (mixed katG variants)	Tailor combination therapy (e.g., rifampin + isoniazid) to minimize survival of diverse resistant clones
Adaptation	Populations evolve to changing environments	Enterococcus faecium evolves vancomycin resistance via vanA genes	E. faecium DO (vancomycin-sensitive)	Develop next-generation antibiotics targeting new pathways (e.g., linezolid targeting protein synthesis)
Survival of the Fittest	Most fit reproduce in the new environment	MDR strains outcompete sensitive ones in drug-rich environments	Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883	Rotate or cycle antibiotics in hospitals to reduce selective pressure on any one resistance trait
Selective Pressure	Environmental conditions shape evolution	Antibiotic overuse selects resistant bacteria	E. coli K-12 (pre-fluoroquinolone resistance)	Use antimicrobial stewardship to reduce unnecessary pressure; limit broad-spectrum drug use
Co-evolution	Interacting species evolve in response	Bacteria develop β-lactamases, we develop β-lactamase inhibitors	H. influenzae Rd KW20 (non–β-lactamase producer)	Design inhibitors (e.g., clavulanic acid) based on enzyme evolution structure modeling
Evolutionary Arms Race	Ongoing adaptations between rivals	Pathogens modify surface proteins to evade immunity	Bordetella pertussis Tohama I	Continuously update vaccine components (e.g., DTaP formulation changes) to match new variants
Genetic Drift / Gene Flow	Random changes & horizontal gene transfer	Resistance genes spread across species (e.g., CTX-M plasmids)	E. coli K-12 & Klebsiella MGH 78578 (pre-ESBL)	Use genomic surveillance to monitor plasmid transmission and inform targeted antibiotic policies
Predictive Power of Evolution	Evolutionary models can forecast change	Streptococcus pneumoniae shifts to non-vaccine serotypes	S. pneumoniae D39 (serotype 2)	Predict future mutations and preemptively design mRNA or conjugate vaccines (e.g., PCV13, mRNA COVID-19 updates)

Explain how the theory of evolution is useless in the development of medicines.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-07T15:48:53-0500

Buzzard3 said:
Please provide an example of how the theory that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor has proven useful in medical science.

Not playing this game. You said "The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless to medical research and every other form of applied science."

You've not said how or why. Answer that question.

Fervent · 2025-07-07T15:51:53-0500

Buzzard3 said:
Please provide an example of how the theory that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor has proven useful in medical science.

Please provide an example of someone who has argued that.

May as well ask how the theory of stellar evolution has proven useful in medical science. No one has made the claim, so all you are doing is presenting a straw objection.

Hans Blaster · 2025-07-07T20:34:17-0500

Fervent said:
May as well ask how the theory of stellar evolution has proven useful in medical science. No one has made the claim, so all you are doing is presenting a straw objection.

Well...

If you want to turn inorganic matter into living organic matter (as was briefly mentioned over the weekend on one of these threads) you will definitely need stellar evolution to cook up some carbon.

Fervent · 2025-07-07T20:41:40-0500

Hans Blaster said:
Well...

If you want to turn inorganic matter into living organic matter (as was briefly mentioned over the weekend on one of these threads) you will definitely need stellar evolution to cook up some carbon.

Playing the long game, I see

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T22:55:41-0500

sjastro said:
Regretfully you can't stick to the same story as I was responding to this.

Here is the table again for reference.

Aspect Evolutionary Principle How Pathogens Use It to Evolve Resistance Specific Ancestor Example How Medicine Uses Evolution to Counter Resistance
Mutation Random genetic change introduces variation Spontaneous mutations in bacterial genes confer resistance (e.g., rpsL) Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv (pre-streptomycin) Screen for naturally occurring bacterial compounds (e.g., streptomycin); use mutagenesis to find weak spots in bacteria
Natural Selection Fitter variants survive and reproduce Drug-resistant strains survive treatment and dominate Staphylococcus aureus 8325-4 (pre-penicillin resistance) Use high-throughput evolution models to simulate resistance and pre-select drugs less likely to fail
Variation within Populations Genetic diversity affects survival outcomes Resistant subpopulations survive while others die Mycobacterium tuberculosis wild strains (mixed katG variants) Tailor combination therapy (e.g., rifampin + isoniazid) to minimize survival of diverse resistant clones
Adaptation Populations evolve to changing environments Enterococcus faecium evolves vancomycin resistance via vanA genes E. faecium DO (vancomycin-sensitive) Develop next-generation antibiotics targeting new pathways (e.g., linezolid targeting protein synthesis)
Survival of the Fittest Most fit reproduce in the new environment MDR strains outcompete sensitive ones in drug-rich environments Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883 Rotate or cycle antibiotics in hospitals to reduce selective pressure on any one resistance trait
Selective Pressure Environmental conditions shape evolution Antibiotic overuse selects resistant bacteria E. coli K-12 (pre-fluoroquinolone resistance) Use antimicrobial stewardship to reduce unnecessary pressure; limit broad-spectrum drug use
Co-evolution Interacting species evolve in response Bacteria develop β-lactamases, we develop β-lactamase inhibitors H. influenzae Rd KW20 (non–β-lactamase producer) Design inhibitors (e.g., clavulanic acid) based on enzyme evolution structure modeling
Evolutionary Arms Race Ongoing adaptations between rivals Pathogens modify surface proteins to evade immunity Bordetella pertussis Tohama I Continuously update vaccine components (e.g., DTaP formulation changes) to match new variants
Genetic Drift / Gene Flow Random changes & horizontal gene transfer Resistance genes spread across species (e.g., CTX-M plasmids) E. coli K-12 & Klebsiella MGH 78578 (pre-ESBL) Use genomic surveillance to monitor plasmid transmission and inform targeted antibiotic policies
Predictive Power of Evolution Evolutionary models can forecast change Streptococcus pneumoniae shifts to non-vaccine serotypes S. pneumoniae D39 (serotype 2) Predict future mutations and preemptively design mRNA or conjugate vaccines (e.g., PCV13, mRNA COVID-19 updates)

Explain how the theory of evolution is useless in the development of medicines.

That depends on what you mean by "the theory of evolution", for there are different interpretations of that term.
If by "the theory of evolution" you mean the mechanisms of evolution (as your posts suggest), please be advised that I never claimed that the mechanisms of evolution (as listed in your posts) are "useless in the development of medicines".

My argument is that the theory of common descent (that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor - often referred to as the theory of evolution) is useless in the field of medical science.

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T23:45:22-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, my comment was made in disbelief that you could say that in all seriousness when it's a contradictory statement.

Please explain why it's a "contradictory statement".

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-07T23:50:24-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Not playing this game. You said "The theory of common descent is irrelevant and useless to medical research and every other form of applied science."

You've not said how or why. Answer that question.

If no one is aware of any use for the theory of common descent in medical or biological research, it's a fair guess that none exist.

Buzzard3 · 2025-07-08T00:29:15-0500

Fervent said:
Please provide an example of someone who has argued that.

May as well ask how the theory of stellar evolution has proven useful in medical science. No one has made the claim, so all you are doing is presenting a straw objection.

Stephen W. Schaeffer (Professor Emeritus of Biology) claims that the theory of common descent has proven useful in identifying so-called conserved sequences in human DNA (if "conserved", such sequences are understood to serve a functional purpose ... as opposed to so-called junk DNA, which is generally understood to serve no functional purpose).

My understanding is that process involves comparing human and chimps DNA, then finding similar DNA sequences, which are alleged (according to the theory of common descent) to have been "conserved" by natural selection from a common ancestor.

But it seems debatable to me if identifying conserved sequences has actually proven fruitful in curing or improving the treatment of any disease.

sjastro · 2025-07-08T00:36:20-0500

Buzzard3 said:
That depends on what you mean by "the theory of evolution", for there are different interpretations of that term.
If by "the theory of evolution" you mean the mechanisms of evolution (as your posts suggest), please be advised that I never claimed that the mechanisms of evolution (as listed in your posts) are "useless in the development of medicines".

My argument is that the theory of common descent (that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor - often referred to as the theory of evolution) is useless in the field of medical science.

A common mistake made by individuals who are unfamiliar with science is to confuse theory with interpretation. There is only one theory of evolution defined by the drivers of evolution in the Aspect column of the table. (The exception is the last entry since predictive power is not a driver but a strength of the theory).
Interpretation is more nuanced where a particular aspect of the theory such as whether the dominant spread of genetic change is due to natural selection or genetic drift which does not alter the theory itself.

Then there is the application of the theory such as the development of strain resistant antibiotics as defined in the table where the same evolutionary drivers are used which also explains a common ancestor to all life forms. You cannot divorce the two.

Icons of Evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads