I have two friends who teach evolutionary biology at American medical schools. One designed the model evolution curriculum for medical students at his university (both pre-med and for first year medical students) and he when I was him over Christmas break he was telling me about being asked to write a medical school textbook prospectus for one of the major academic publishers. He said that the first edition will be published in English, German, and possibly French. He said that several medical schools have asked for him to advice their curriculum revision and heâs had several dozen deans and department chairs email him about getting copies of syllabi.
=> I will be notifying this Anatomy and Microbiology professor that johnZ has determined that âevolution theory has nothing beneficial to provide to medicineâ and that his services will no longer be needed.
I also have a nephew who is an expert on virtual reality technology. It is obvious that JohnZ has successfully created an ALTERNATE REALITY SIMULATION that he has successfully integrated into his life. In that alternate reality, evolution theory provides no benefits to medicine and human health. So the development of antibiotics and vaccines is trapped in a 1950âs time warp. And the use of retroviruses in genetic repairs are rejected.
Somebody has been spending too much time on and getting their âscienceâ from Creation.com, AIG, and ICR.
Dcscccc, how many antibiotics were âdesignedâ in the last ten years âwithout any help from the evolution theoryâ. Please name a few of them.
So you think everybody on the planet agrees with that definition of evolution.
Incredible.
So that is your best example of âfraud and manipulationâ in science? (Or âbetter exampleâ, as you say.) Seriously?
Are you saying that you think scientists sit around defining scientific terms based on âconvenienceâ?
Dr. Christine Janis, Professor of Paleontology and author of the most popular textbooks of Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy used at universities all over the world, wrote about this âincredible hubrisâ of the anti-evolution campaigners. She often interacts with detractors online and marvels at how they think scientists start each day worrying about what the anti-evolution creationists are thinking and doing. She once surveyed her colleagues to determine just how much they know about the Ken Ham/AIG and ICR types of evolution deniers. Few had more than a incidental news sound bite telling them what YECers think. Dr. Janis sometimes sends them the on-line tidbits she collects, such as the outrageous claims of people like JohnZ. Many assume that she is pranking them.
JohnZ, I congratulate you for knowing when to walk away without stepping into water that is way over your head.
It appears that by posting to a thread which had been inactive for an entire month, you thought you could post a total misrepresentation of the science without anybody noticing. You were wrong.
Truth does matter to the Christ-followers who care about evidence. Those Christians are well suited to serve as witnesses for Christ within the university environment. Those who deny the facts of science convince non-believers that Christians donât care about honesty. That concerns me.
John, if you wish to deny evolution theory, you can do so. But when you misrepresent what the textbooks say and you call the scientists and professors fraudulent, youâve gone way past the boundaries of honesty and ethics.
One can disagree without being dishonorable and dishonest.
This statement reveals something of your logical processes, as well as your ability to understand what you read. It is not everyone who agrees with that definition, but that if everyone did agree with it, then everyone would of necessity be an evolutionist, since I know of no one including YEC who does not agree that sometimes there is a shift in frequencies of genetic alleles in a population.
You are free also to provide a better example of fraud in science, ie. perhaps you are thinking of Piltdown man or Lucy or Haeckelâs embryo drawings in innocent school childrenâs textbooks?
Really? that is a realistic objective? to write and then hope that no one reads it? Really?
You are giving me the impression that you are merely trolling.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:183, topic:548, full:trueâ]
An allele is a form or variation of a gene.[/quote]
Hello John,
This is the only thing you got right!
So, John, between you and a mouse, how many of the genetic differences are merely allelic and how many arenât? If you donât know, guess.
Wrong! Members of the same species often have things like inversions, which change the order of genes.
Do you realize that huge chunks of your chromosomes have the same âplacementâ of the same genes as huge chunks of a mouseâs chromosomes? Look up âsyntenyâ and you might learn something before judging others as fraudulent.
John, you clearly donât have a clue. Why not show some humility?
Again, youâll understand how silly your claim is if you find the answer to my question: how many/what proportion of the genetic differences between you and a mouse are merely allelic?
John, one species rarely simply changes to another. You donât understand the most basic aspects of the evolutionary theories that threaten you so much.
[quote]To conflate allele frequencies as a definition of evolution is fraudulent.
[/quote]Thatâs just pathetic.
I like to think about how two statements that seem to be contradictory can in fact be simultaneously true. I will not repeat all of the evidence others have offered about the usefulness of evolution in a medical school curriculum. Moreover, I am highly inclined to trust the judgment of medical school deans when they appoint biology faculty for the express purpose of teaching evolution to medical school students.
So what am I to make of Dr. Egnorâs two statements, that seem to contradict all of the other evidence brought to this discussion? I think that the first (âevolutionary theory has not been helpful to his career in medicineâ) is actually not a contradiction. There are plenty of medical school topics that would not be relevant to a pediatric neurosurgeon. He wouldnât need to understand nutrition or geriatrics, for example. So the fact that he does not find the topic of evolutionary theory to be helpful in his practice does not imply that all the faculty deans who are appointing faculty to teach evolution are misled.
The second statement (âto the best of his knowledge no medical program includes a course on evolutionary theoryâ) has already been discussed at length. His statement squares quite readily with the observation that many medical schools incorporate the topic of evolutionary theory into courses with other labels, for example. The fact that a medical school has no single course on evolutionary theory does not mean that the medical school considers the topic of evolutionary theory to be irrelevant.
However, these are usually either neutral if small and balanced, or harmful if larger⌠and not really relevant to the main issue of a change in alleles.
Relevance? The issue is not similarity between different species, but a change of alleles within a population.
You are presuming pride, which seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
You seem to understand genetics well. Itâs a pity you do not understand the context of definitions and their implications as well.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:196, topic:548â]
So, John, between you and a mouse, how many of the genetic differences are merely allelic and how many arenât?
Relevance?[/quote]
Your claim that evolution=changes in allele frequencies is fraudulent, of course.
You claimed placement as a demarcation criterion.
Again, John, do you really know what an allele is and how species and higher taxa differ genetically? Tell us what proportion of the functional genetic differences between you and a mouse are merely allelic. This is all about facts, not theory.
Evolution is change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Macroevolution over the time scales that threaten you theologically is too!
âEvolution is any change in the gene pool of a populationâŚâ (GB)
Evolutionary geneticists assume that they can be reductionists, reducing a long, comprehensive, all-encompassing process to one small part. In doing so, they are semantically able to make sure that all of life is evolution, and that nothing could even theoretically exist apart from the grand theory of evolution. This is a manipulative process, fraudulently attempting to marginalize any discussion of the validity of the theory.
With such a definition, evolutionists are doing the equivalent of saying that the definition of a car is its engine, or the definition of a dog is its bark, or the definition of a house is the floor. Imagine saying that the floor of the house is the house. Imagine saying that a 5.7 L engine is the car. Yet this is what evolutionists are doing when they say that evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population. Or when they say that evolution is any change in the gene pool of a population.
It appears that many evolutionists are unable to distinguish between process and result. They are unable to distinguish between necessary conditions and the process. They are unable to distinguish between the parts and the whole. Richard Dawkins illustrated this perfectly when he stated that you can see evolution all around you. Yet when asked to give one example of an increase in genetic information that led to a new or divergent species, he was stumped. Because we do not see it around us, and it is only inferred at best. Arguably the inferences are incorrect or at minimum are speculative.
The honest definition of evolution would include: âthe ongoing change in frequencies of alleles and other genetic changes leading to a constant development of new organs, structures, and species, resulting in the eventual formation of all present day species from one or a small group of original biotic organisms, and including the formation of life itself through abiogenesisâŚâ
If evolution is âthe ongoing change in frequencies of alleles and other genetic changes,â holistically, what functional genetic differences are allelic and what fall in your undefined âother genetic changesâ when you consider the actual facts: the differences between you and a mouse? No speculation, just facts that are the sameâwhether you hypothesize that the differences were caused by evolution or by special creation.
Instead of going on about what âevolutionistsâ are allegedly assuming and saying, why donât you address what an âevolutionistâ is saying to you right now? Why donât you consider your own assumptions instead of projecting them onto others?
What are YOU assuming about the genetic differences between you and a mouse, if you claim that âchanges in allele frequencies in a populationâ is inadequate?
I guarantee that you wonât find the relevant facts on any creationist web site.
As has already been pointed out, why talk about what evolution actually means when one can create out of thin air irrelevant analogies which are mind-numbingly meaninglessâbut which do allow one to convince a few non-scientists that something profound has been stated? More analogies to machines.
No. I donât waste time on such propaganda tactics, no more how old and traditional. Good bye.
because the supposed evolutionist is not saying anything, but only asking questions, and misquoting (shortening) the definition. The topic is allele differences within a population, not the differences between me and a mouse.
The analogies are irrelevant to you, not to me, and not to other students and users of normal language. The shortened definition is more poetry than science, but it is no surprise you donât understand that. Have a good day.
Yes. Analogies, when properly chosen, can help students understand science. They may even have a place in a peer-reviewed science journal in explaining something new. Nevertheless, analogies are never the equivalent of what they help to explain so they have no value in denying or protesting science.
Deniers of science tend to prefer analogies because it is a way to complain about and deny the scientific evidence without actually dealing with it.