proving evolution as just a "theory"

[BradB]

Here is one MD:

Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian and former head of the human genome project. He states you can't do biology without evolution and medicine, is a whole bunch of biology. This is the consensus, of the medical field and biology. Sorry.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

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.

 

[BradB]

Delete

 

[BradB]

Evolution may not be directly applied in practicing medicine (i.e. as a GP or something), but it definitely has a role in modern medical and pharmaceutical research.

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.

 

[BradB]

lol! There's a doctor to avoid.... I wonder if he administered any vaccines to anyone...?

EDIT: Nope, no, turns out he doesn't practice medicine anymore - apparently preaching pays better! Lists of creationist scientists - RationalWiki

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

For starters, vacinations.

 

[BradB]

turns out he doesn't practice medicine anymore - apparently preaching pays better! Lists of creationist scientists - RationalWiki

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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.

 

[BradB]

For starters, vacinations.

Hmmm... that's odd. I just read an entire article on the developmental processes of the first vaccinations. Do you know how many times the concept of evolution came up? (ZERO)

 

[bhsmte]

Hmmm... that's odd. I just read an entire article on the developmental processes of the first vaccinations. Do you know how many times the concept of evolution came up? (ZERO)

And what article would that be?

Evolution in Medicine

 

[pitabread]

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.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Hmmm... that's odd. I just read an entire article on the developmental processes of the first vaccinations. Do you know how many times the concept of evolution came up? (ZERO)

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

 

[xianghua]

but in short, the ALX3 gene has been independently lost in each of these lineages, and as the research paper notes, this is mapped out and is known to be broken in unique ways between these lineages.

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.

What would be a problem would be if they had all been broken in the same way at the same loci. Then there'd be questions about the validity of common ancestry

are you sure?

 

[pitabread]

secondly: even if all creatures were created independently we still can get the same result. if all creatures were created very similar then we should get very similar result to the evolutionery prediction. since they all start with almost identical genome.

Why would independently created species "start with almost identical genome"?

All you're doing is using the biological evolution model and calling it "design". Your design model doesn't add anything of any value or make any different assumptions.

see above. even if we ignore all of this its still logical to conclude that if we see a conserve sequence among many species- we can conclude that this sequence has an important rule.

But why?

You keep saying you can "conclude" this, but you're not making a conclusion at all. You're making a completely baseless assumption for no apparent reason.

Like I said already, unless you can come up with a proper basis for making these assumptions within the context of independently designed genomes, you don't have a "design model" at all. All you're doing is assuming all the same things we assume under evolution and calling it "design" instead.

 

[xianghua]

Why would independently created species "start with almost identical genome"?

because we already know that even different creatures shared a lot of their genes. one of the most different creatures on earth shared most of their genome:


The <i>Amphimedon queenslandica</i> genome and the evolution of animal complexity

"Sponges are an ancient group of animals that diverged from other metazoans over 600 million years ago. Here we present the draft genome sequence of Amphimedon queenslandica, a demosponge from the Great Barrier Reef, and show that it is remarkably similar to other animal genomes in content, structure and organization"


so even if evolution is wrong, we can know that the genomes among many species should be very similar.

But why?

because those amino acids are clearly important. this is why the sequence is conserve among many creatures. if they were not so important then the designer should use many other amino acids in other creatures.

 

[BradB]

And what article would that be?

Evolution in Medicine

Umm...the one linked by the words in blue?

 

[pitabread]

because we already know that even different creatures shared a lot of their genes.

So what? Why would we expect designed species to be more similar than they are now? Why wouldn't we expect them to have exactly the same level of dissimilarity that we observe today?

From an evolutionary basis, we know that organisms diverged from common ancestral genomes (hence similarity).

From a design basis, you're still not giving me a reason why they would be more similar than they are now.

because those amino acids are clearly important. this is why the sequence is conserve among many creatures. if they were not so important then the designer should use many other amino acids in other creatures.

You're just going in circles again. All you're really saying is that similarities are important because they are similar. That's it.

Under evolution, we know that similarities are likely conserved via natural selection and consequently important.

Under design, you don't have the same selective constraint. So your constraint is...?

Stop repeating yourself and give me a real answer here.

 

[bhsmte]

Umm...the one linked by the words in blue?

See post 4291

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hmmm... that's odd. I just read an entire article on the developmental processes of the first vaccinations. Do you know how many times the concept of evolution came up? (ZERO)

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?

 

[Job 33:6]

There is, it is, and it can't. If you disagree then YOU try giving an example. You jump through that hoop and then I will.

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.

 

[ruthiesea]

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.

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