Does evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefit?

Faith & Science Conversation
105

Cross-Disciplinary Training for Future Physicians is an article from 2010 on the Howard Hughes Medical Institute site. It discusses the new courses being developed at Yale for future physicians.

> In one of Yale’s new courses, students will learn about quantitative approaches to biological problems. Another course will link evolutionary biology and medicine, tackling topics such as the evolution of disease-causing viruses and bacteria, the development of drug resistance, and the emergence of new diseases.

(Of course, what they really need to work on is the parking situation in New Haven!)

107

We were talking about the supposed uselessness of evolutionary theory in medicine. I’m sure that Egnor is a fine surgeon, despite his funny attitude. He has health care professionals who understand evolutionary theory and can develop effective antibiotics for him to prescribe.

108

I think the real problem with a surgeon who is a YEC is one of judgement and progressive thinking. Will he/she look for new ways of treatment based on new science. Will they be open minded to evolve as a surgeon? Will he/she understand and accept genomics and advance drug therapies based on embroic stem cell research?

110

[quote=“Eddie, post:103, topic:548”]
@Joao

“That’s really all Eddie can do, that and pretend that empirical knowledge is trivial while theory is all that matters.”

What irony! In fact, the empirical evidence for the claim (made by Mayr, Dobzhansky, etc.) that macroevolution is just microevolution writ large, and that the mechanisms which govern the acquisition of antibiotic resistance are by themselves sufficient to generate new phyla, is virtually non-existent.
[/quote]All talk, no evidence. The irony is that you portray antibiotic resistance as the summation of evidence.

What’s the MECHANISTIC difference between macro and micro, Eddie? ALL mechanisms and evidence, no names. I think that you’re incapable of it.

[quote=“Eddie, post:103, topic:548”]
…That’s because we now have more empirical knowledge of things like developmental biology and molecular biology – knowledge which in their day Mayr, Dobzhansky, etc. lacked, allowing them to bluff shamelessly with theoretical constructs derived almost solely from population genetics.
[/quote]Developmental and molecular biology provide most of the evidence that you’re ignoring, Eddie.

[quote=“Eddie, post:103, topic:548”]
A really good educational resource is the proceedings of the 1966 Wistar Conference.
[/quote]No, that was 50 years ago. There’s been a lot of evidence produced since then that you are afraid to examine for yourself.

You’re all bluster, no evidence. Again, I challenge you to put up a comment entirely about mechanisms and evidence, without any names or derivatives thereof. You can’t do it, Eddie.

111

What’s the mechanistic difference between macro and micro, Eddie?

112

[quote=“Eddie, post:99, topic:548”]
I think he has more “empirical” knowledge of the human brain than you do.
[/quote]The subject on which you’re claiming him to be an expert is empirical knowledge of evolution.

Yes, you take his word on subjects in which he has zero expertise because you wish it to be true.

If you were really a fearless scholar, you would not take anyone’s word for anything and dive into the evidence for yourself, but you’re afraid. Instead, it’s all hearsay and name-dropping in a desperate attempt to create an illusion of scholarship.

115

I know I am quite late to this, but I do find the original question, and some of the comments intriguing. Perhaps I can add my thoughts, having taught in medical schools and graduate school of Public Health.

I do not believe I have ever seen a course in any Medical School curriculum called “Evolutionary Biology”:. Its hard enough to get medical students to concentrate on Biochemistry. So, technically its true that the fascinating intracacies of evolutionary biology are not taught in medical schools.

BUT. One cannot even begin to think about biochemistry, pharmacology, immunology, microbiology, physiology or anatomy (all essential fields for an educated doctor, as well as other health professionals) without a basic understanding of biology. By that I mean an understanding of cell structure, genetics, enzymology, cellular biochemistry etc. And all of that, all of biology is completely dependent on understanding the basics of evolutionary theory.

I am not speaking here of the details of neo Darwinism vs. punctuated equilibrium, or the role of transitional fossils or any of the other advanced topics of evolution that often fill our discussions here. I am speaking of the basic premises of Darwinian natural selection, and genetic variation in the broadest terms. Without knowing and understanding these points, no student can even think of being a professional biomedical scientist or health worker. To try to do so would be exceedingly difficult and highly disadvantageous.

1 Like
116

The original question was framed in such a narrow way(*) that I’m not sure what the answer is, apart from obvious cases like pesticide resistance. The answer to the broader question – does evolution enable scientific discoveries – is certainly “yes”. We use it constantly in genetics and genomics. The concept of common descent is used in identifying functional genetic elements, in distinguishing ancestral from derived alleles (which in turn is useful for a variety of purposes), in estimating chromosomal variation in mutation and recombination rates. The concept of natural selection is crucial in identifying beneficial traits and recent changes to populations or species.

(*) It’s limited to scientific discoveries of direct practical benefit, and to cases where the discovery could not be made any other way.

118

[quote=“Eddie, post:113, topic:548”]
I’ll meet your challenge after you have told us who you are and given us a list of your peer-reviewed publications in journals of evolutionary theory.[/quote]
I see. So my relevant empirical, peer-reviewed publications in journals including Cell, Nature, PNAS, JBC, etc. wouldn’t count, and only publications in evolutionary theory would? Why would that be, Eddie?

[quote]Things have got much worse, not better, for neo-Darwinism since the Wistar conference. Only dinosaurs like Coyne and Dawkins are pure neo-Darwinians any more.
[/quote]Eddie, “neo-Darwinism” is just a Humpty Dumpty word for you. Try referring to specific mechanisms and evidence for once.

119

[quote=“Eddie, post:117, topic:548”]
But given that most medical students have done their undergraduate work in the life sciences, they should have picked up that basic stuff before even starting medical school. At my university all biology majors had to take courses in genetics and evolution, in cell biology, in ecology, in zoology, in organic chemistry, and so on.[/quote]
How is that relevant, given that a biology major is not a prerequisite for admission to medical school?

That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion since one does not have to be a biology or even a life sciences major to apply to medical school. Are you unaware of this fact?

[quote]I would be very surprised if it isn’t the same just about everywhere.[/quote]It’s still not relevant, since a biology major is in no way a prerequisite.

[quote]I’m sure that is why medical schools have not thought it necessary to introduce students to variation, mutation, natural selection, etc. in the medical program.
[/quote]I think that Sy was saying the opposite of that: “And all of that, all of biology is completely dependent on understanding the basics of evolutionary theory.” Evolutionary concepts are widespread and essential in medical school curricula.

122

Yes, that was actually my point. You wont learn it in Med School, but you need to learn it.

123

This entire conversation about whether knowledge of evolution is needed for doctors (not to mention surgeons) reminds me of my teaching days when students would ask me “Do we need to know this?” I always said “Yes, you do, in fact its pointless to ever ask me that question again, because I will always answer yes. You need to know everything.”

1 Like
124

Wrong. It is not. Biology is the foundation of medicine, and evolution theory has nothing beneficial to provide to medicine. In fact, it has often made incorrect assumptions and predictions, such as predicting useless vestigial organs which were in fact, not useless. It has also assumed junk dna which in fact also had a purpose. It leads to an assumption of inferior and superior human races. It has caused scientists to falsify or mislead people into making evolutionary assumptions about fossils, especially about hominid fossils. then i recently hear the term again, about no modern dinosaurs except avian dinosaurs. Really. So why then are crocodiles not modern dinosaurs. The clouds of confusion caused by evolution theory are endless. Equating evolution theory with germ theory or theory of electrons is another confusion. Germs can be seen, observed. They can be grown, or killed, or prevented from growing by antiseptics. Electron theory is constantly being verified and utilized every single day in every home by every appliance, lightbulb, and vehicle. Evolution theory is not even close.