What does it mean? Why is it important?

[J_B_]

This is an experiment on my part, so I don't know if it's a good idea or not. It's just an attempt to dig a little deeper into why I'm focused on the question in this thread.

First of all, this thread is not about whether the science making up evolution is true or not. Rather, it's about the importance of that science to evolution and what it means. I may ask the question, "What if concept A is false?", but not because I intend to prove it false. Rather the question is meant to get at why that concept is important to evolution and what it means.

I'll start with an example that is only peripherally related to the aspects of evolution typically debated here.

 

[J_B_]

An example as a test case: As I understand it, cancer research has several competing ideas. One is called CSC (Cancer Stem Cell), and posits that cancer initiates due to genetic changes within the cell, i.e. it is a single cell idea. Another is called TOFT (Tissue Organization Field Theory), and posits that cancer initiates due to a breakdown in cell communication and, thereby, tissue organization - one of those means of communication being Paracrine signaling.

Why is this issue important and what does it mean?

 

[Occams Barber]

An example as a test case: As I understand it, cancer research has several competing ideas. One is called CSC (Cancer Stem Cell), and posits that cancer initiates due to genetic changes within the cell, i.e. it is a single cell idea. Another is called TOFT (Tissue Organization Field Theory), and posits that cancer initiates due to a breakdown in cell communication and, thereby, tissue organization - one of those means of communication being Paracrine signaling.

Why is this issue important and what does it mean?

Hi JB

Normally your questions are characterised by a certain vagueness.

This time you've outdone yourself.

I don't have a clue what you're on about.

OB

 

[Carl Emerson]

An example as a test case: As I understand it, cancer research has several competing ideas. One is called CSC (Cancer Stem Cell), and posits that cancer initiates due to genetic changes within the cell, i.e. it is a single cell idea. Another is called TOFT (Tissue Organization Field Theory), and posits that cancer initiates due to a breakdown in cell communication and, thereby, tissue organization - one of those means of communication being Paracrine signaling.

Why is this issue important and what does it mean?

... Mmmm. Because cancer kills folks maybe?

 

[J_B_]

Hi JB

Normally your questions are characterised by a certain vagueness.

This time you've outdone yourself.

I don't have a clue what your on about.

OB

Since post #2 is just an example, I'll tell you how I would answer in the context of this thread, and then you can agree or disagree.

Why are the various hypotheses about cancer (CSC & TOFT) important? The obvious answer would be because we want to get it right. We want to stop cancer. We want to know if CSC, TOFT, both, or neither cause cancer.

But now dig a little deeper. What if CSC, which posits genetic changes within a single cell, is a cause? I'm not a biologist, so I may be misinterpreting what CSC is, but that sounds very similar to a primary cause of evolution - changes in the genetic code. If I am correct, does that pose a moral dilemma? What if there is a doctor who rejects evolution, and thereby inadvertently rejects CSC? Is that doctor overlooking the cause of his patient's disease? To me, that makes this issue all the more important. We're talking about people's lives.

Keep going deeper. If CSC & evolution are connected as I have indicated, and we hold medical personnel morally responsible for stopping disease, are we asking them to stop evolution ... or at least to choose which genetic changes to stop and which not to stop? Or maybe choose to artificially induce others? It would seem to become a very complex moral issue.

As such, I'd be interested to know: Do Christian doctors tend to favor TOFT over CSC as a hypothesis? Do they see distinctions between CSC as a cause of cancer and evolution generally?

Again, maybe I'm way off base on the nature of CSC, but I'm hoping it will at least serve as an example of how specific details that impinge on evolution can become important.

 

[J_B_]

... Mmmm. Because cancer kills folks maybe?

Sometimes the simple answer is the best one, isn't it?

 

[Occams Barber]

Since post #2 is just an example, I'll tell you how I would answer in the context of this thread, and then you can agree or disagree.

Why are the various hypotheses about cancer (CSC & TOFT) important? The obvious answer would be because we want to get it right. We want to stop cancer. We want to know if CSC, TOFT, both, or neither cause cancer.

But now dig a little deeper. What if CSC, which posits genetic changes within a single cell, is a cause? I'm not a biologist, so I may be misinterpreting what CSC is, but that sounds very similar to a primary cause of evolution - changes in the genetic code. If I am correct, does that pose a moral dilemma? What if there is a doctor who rejects evolution, and thereby inadvertently rejects CSC? Is that doctor overlooking the cause of his patient's disease? To me, that makes this issue all the more important. We're talking about people's lives.

Keep going deeper. If CSC & evolution are connected as I have indicated, and we hold medical personnel morally responsible for stopping disease, are we asking them to stop evolution ... or at least to choose which genetic changes to stop and which not to stop? Or maybe choose to artificially induce others? It would seem to become a very complex moral issue.

As such, I'd be interested to know: Do Christian doctors tend to favor TOFT over CSC as a hypothesis? Do they see distinctions between CSC as a cause of cancer and evolution generally?

Again, maybe I'm way off base on the nature of CSC, but I'm hoping it will at least serve as an example of how specific details that impinge on evolution can become important.

Sorry mate

I'm going to leave it to others to sort. I still don't get the point of your post.

OB

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I understand your OP and other remarks, the thought comes to me that with science, 'what works' may sometimes be poorly understood, but useful anyway. The doctor in your example that doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution doesn't need to believe in evolution to know that certain distantly related ideas do work for what they are used for.

 

[J_B_]

If I understand your OP and other remarks, the thought comes to me that with science, 'what works' may sometimes be poorly understood, but useful anyway.

Sure.

The doctor in your example that doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution doesn't need to believe in evolution to know that certain distantly related ideas do work for what they are used for.

True, and practicing doctors usually work from the discoveries of others. Further, technology is sometimes statistically based such that there is no underlying model to be understood. In fact, some in biology have begun to argue that the power of big data and supercomputers may make modeling obsolete.

Still, if one is on the research side of the business and remains a believer in the need for models, you won't make any discoveries regarding a model you never exercise.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sure.



True, and practicing doctors usually work from the discoveries of others. Further, technology is sometimes statistically based such that there is no underlying model to be understood. In fact, some in biology have begun to argue that the power of big data and supercomputers may make modeling obsolete.

Still, if one is on the research side of the business and remains a believer in the need for models, you won't make any discoveries regarding a model you never exercise.

But big data still won't know about the butterfly wingbeat on the other side of the earth that made the difference between a hurricane and no hurricane on this side.

I do like what you said about big data and supercomputers, though, because what people have historically heard scientists attribute to chance or randomness has become a little less defensible as such, and cause-and-effect still reigns.

 

[J_B_]

Thanks to those that replied, but my experiment was obviously a failure. Still, dullard that I am, I'll press on (in other threads).

I suppose my position could be summarized thus:
First, for Christians -
1. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Evolution is a complex network of scientific details, and even if you deny the final conclusion (i.e. descent with modification), don't think that means you have to deny everything that led to the conclusion.
2. Learning all those scientific details is a lifelong venture, and only a community of professional biologists is going to have a grasp on it. IOW, biologists know more about biology than you do. Disagreeing with them on some of those details doesn't mean disrespecting them, nor does a possible error in one detail mean they err on all details.
3. Points #1 and #2 mean Christians can make positive contributions to biology even if they don't accept evolution ... difficult as that would be from a peer group relationship perspective.

Second, for non-believers -
1. If a Christian disagrees with one detail of biology, it doesn't automatically equate with a subversive, mercenary campaign to bring down evolution.
2. As stated above, disagreeing on a particular detail doesn't necessarily mean Christians are disrespecting biologists or denying science.
3. Certain aspects of biology could be found wrong, yet leave evolution standing.