Using evolution to fight cancer

[Brightmoon]

its an article in the August 2019 Scientific American. Doctors are using the principles of how pesticides make resistant insect pest populations ( natural selection) to prevent cancers from becoming resistant to chemotherapy drugs . The article is titled DARWIN’S CANCER FIX

This is only one example of how evolution is used in medical research

 

[Brightmoon]

 

[Aussie Pete]

its an article in the August 2019 Scientific American. Doctors are using the principles of how pesticides make resistant insect pest populations ( natural selection) to prevent cancers from becoming resistant to chemotherapy drugs . The article is titled DARWIN’S CANCER FIX

This is only one example of how evolution is used in medical research

Utter garbage. Check out Professor James Tour on how his research group is dealing with cancer research, also repairing severed spinal cords and other amazing developments. He destroys all Origin of Life arguments except creation.

 

[Brightmoon]

Utter garbage. Check out Professor James Tour on how his research group is dealing with cancer research, also repairing severed spinal cords and other amazing developments. He destroys all Origin of Life arguments except creation.

I stopped wasting my time with creationist crackpots after over 20 years of reading their ignorant and deliberately misleading pseudoscience nonsense. No thanks !

 

[Ophiolite]

Utter garbage. Check out Professor James Tour on how his research group is dealing with cancer research, also repairing severed spinal cords and other amazing developments. He destroys all Origin of Life arguments except creation.

Would you care to say where and how he "destroys all Origin of Life arguments except creation"?

Would you then explain why you are indulging in the cynical equivocation of evolution with abiogenesis?

Once you have completed that work I would like to know how you reconcile your claim with his statement to the effect that "the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes. Despite this, he said he remained open-minded about evolution. He was quoted as saying "I respect that work" and being open to the possibility that future research will complete the explanations." (Cited here.)

 

[Aussie Pete]

If Abiogenesis is not a "thing", neither is evolution. Yes, I know what James Tour said. I also know other statements that are far more dogmatic. I am in regular contact with Professor Tour, who takes his ministry as an evangelist even more seriously than he does his research. Many evolutionists conflate adaptation and macro evolution. That is intellectually dishonest. It is also in direct contradiction to the Bible. That is irrelevant to you, I realise. There is a massive body of work that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution. As in Darwinian. If you mean adaptation, yes, it happens. If you mean evolution as totally random, unguided and spontaneous occurance of life - no. Not all anti evolutionists are Christians. David Berlinski is one of the better known. He is a Theist. He is far from alone in his rejection.
James Tour is a scientist. he knows that he does not know everything. He knows that research can turn up facts that overturn everything that was once considered set in concrete. That is why he is open to the possibility that evolution could be possible. That's much different from the attitude of most evolutionist who resort to insult and and belittling anyone who disagrees with them.

I could present some arguments from a genetics researcher but it takes way too much space. If you want to correspond I could sort something out for you.

 

[Speedwell]

If Abiogenesis is not a "thing", neither is evolution.

Evolution is a "thing" no matter how the first life came into being.

 

[Brightmoon]

If Abiogenesis is not a "thing", neither is evolution. Yes, I know what James Tour said. I also know other statements that are far more dogmatic. I am in regular contact with Professor Tour, who takes his ministry as an evangelist even more seriously than he does his research. Many evolutionists conflate adaptation and macro evolution. That is intellectually dishonest. It is also in direct contradiction to the Bible. That is irrelevant to you, I realise. There is a massive body of work that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution. As in Darwinian. If you mean adaptation, yes, it happens. If you mean evolution as totally random, unguided and spontaneous occurance of life - no. Not all anti evolutionists are Christians. David Berlinski is one of the better known. He is a Theist. He is far from alone in his rejection.
James Tour is a scientist. he knows that he does not know everything. He knows that research can turn up facts that overturn everything that was once considered set in concrete. That is why he is open to the possibility that evolution could be possible. That's much different from the attitude of most evolutionist who resort to insult and and belittling anyone who disagrees with them.

I could present some arguments from a genetics researcher but it takes way too much space. If you want to correspond I could sort something out for you.

. You do realize that that adaptation is just successful natural selection, right! And natural selection is an evolutionary process. And you also realize that speciation is macroevolution. Cuz if you don’t , then you don’t even have a middle schoolers understanding of evolution and you’re making yourself look very ignorant by continually complaining about something you have no knowledge of

 

[Ophiolite]

If Abiogenesis is not a "thing", neither is evolution.

That is an unfounded assertion that is contradicted by practically all biologists, biology textbooks, and any other appropriate repository of biological knowledge. You have no right to preach about intellectual honesty, as you do later, if you make such cynical, false assertions.

Feel free to present a detailed argument justifying your equivocation of terms and I'll consider withdrawing my implicit claim you are lying.

Yes, I know what James Tour said. I also know other statements that are far more dogmatic.

Excellent. Please present examples of these "far more dogmatic statements",.properly cited. (Are you really sure you want to accuse the Professor of being dogmatic? I thought you were presenting his views as being based on science?)

I am in regular contact with Professor Tour, who takes his ministry as an evangelist even more seriously than he does his research.

So, you are calling into question the seriousness of his scientific research. Interesting. So, would you be prepared to pass three questions on to the Professor, on my behalf. These and his responses, would allow us to settle this matter amicably and permanently.

Many evolutionists conflate adaptation and macro evolution. That is intellectually dishonest. It is also in direct contradiction to the Bible. That is irrelevant to you, I realise.

The claim is not irrelevant to me. It is, however, wholly irrelevant to my post and the points I raised. You are aware that moving goal posts is a way of cheating? Excuse me, a way of being intellectually dishonest.

There is a massive body of work that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution. As in Darwinian. If you mean adaptation, yes, it happens. If you mean evolution as totally random, unguided and spontaneous occurance of life - no.

Since your description of evolution wouldn't even pass muster in a convocation of poorly educated YECs we can safely ignore it as a strawman (of the intellectually dishonest variety).

Not all anti evolutionists are Christians. David Berlinski is one of the better known. He is a Theist. He is far from alone in his rejection.
James Tour is a scientist. he knows that he does not know everything. He knows that research can turn up facts that overturn everything that was once considered set in concrete. That is why he is open to the possibility that evolution could be possible. That's much different from the attitude of most evolutionist who resort to insult and and belittling anyone who disagrees with them.

The belittling and the insults are self imposed by an intransigent desire to ignore the facts.

Do I also need to mention that many evolutionists are Christians?

I could present some arguments from a genetics researcher but it takes way too much space. If you want to correspond I could sort something out for you.

Feel free to pm me with an example of the material you find most convincing.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That is an unfounded assertion that is contradicted by practically all biologists, biology textbooks, and any other appropriate repository of biological knowledge. You have no right to preach about intellectual honesty, as you do later, if you make such cynical, false assertions.

Feel free to present a detailed argument justifying your equivocation of terms and I'll consider withdrawing my implicit claim you are lying.

Excellent. Please present examples of these "far more dogmatic statements",.properly cited. (Are you really sure you want to accuse the Professor of being dogmatic? I thought you were presenting his views as being based on science?)

So, you are calling into question the seriousness of his scientific research. Interesting. So, would you be prepared to pass three questions on to the Professor, on my behalf. These and his responses, would allow us to settle this matter amicably and permanently.

The claim is not irrelevant to me. It is, however, wholly irrelevant to my post and the points I raised. You are aware that moving goal posts is a way of cheating? Excuse me, a way of being intellectually dishonest.

Since your description of evolution wouldn't even pass muster in a convocation of poorly educated YECs we can safely ignore it as a strawman (of the intellectually dishonest variety).

The belittling and the insults are self imposed by an intransigent desire to ignore the facts.

Do I also need to mention that many evolutionists are Christians?

Feel free to pm me with an example of the material you find most convincing.

I will reply, but it will take a bit of time. You raise some reasonable points.

"Dogmatic" was a poor choice of words as it usually a pejorative. I meant it in the sense of emphatic.

As to Professor Tour's seriousness with respect to his work, not even his worst enemy (and he has more than a few) could doubt his commitment. However, his commitment to evangelism exceeds that to his work. I have asked when he gets to sleep, but he has yet to respond to that question.

You don't like my description of evolution? That's fine. I don't have time to keep up with the evolving ideas as to what evolution is. Last I counted, there were seven schools of thought. Perhaps that has changed in the meantime.

 

[Ophiolite]

You don't like my description of evolution? That's fine.

Actually, it is not fine. It goes directly to the point that either you do not understand evolutionary theory, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. In crude terms, you are either ignorant or lying. I suspect it is the former. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you do not post as if you were not ignorant of the subject. Unfortunately, you present yourself as knowledgeable. The content of your posts contradicts that.

I don't have time to keep up with the evolving ideas as to what evolution is.

Then you probably don't have the right to express such definitive statements on the subject. You won't find me posting absolute statements regarding the Cathar heresy, Martin Luther's views on the Anabaptists, or other theological matters.

Last I counted, there were seven schools of thought.

That is a profoundly ignorant statement and tends to confirm that your statements on evolution do indeed stem from a deep misunderstanding rather than deliberate deception. I shall be happy to expand upon why it is so profoundly ignorant if you wish.

I will reply, but it will take a bit of time. You raise some reasonable points.

Thank you. I look forward to that.

 

[pitabread]

It is also in direct contradiction to the Bible. That is irrelevant to you, I realise.

This is the crux of the reason creationists object to evolution in the first place. If it weren't for the perceived conflict with religious beliefs, evolution wouldn't be on their radar.

Everything else is just a smokescreen.

There is a massive body of work that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution.

No there isn't.

In my experience, there are usually three broad claims regarding the impossibility of evolution.

1) Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument which suggests that multi-part systems cannot evolve. However, the last couple decades have shown various examples of how such systems can and do evolve and that "irreducible complexity" is not synonymous with un-evolvable.

2) The "no new information" argument, which rests on the claim that new genetic 'information' cannot be created. These arguments tend to rely on ambiguity regarding what genetic information actually is and usually resort to argument-via-analogy rather than directly addressing genetics.

2) Finally, probability claims which are the most frequent of these types of arguments. Invariably such arguments all make the same fundamental errors in that they don't rely on enough information to derive meaningful probabilities in the first place, and that post-hoc probabilities for specific events are not relevant to begin with.