Does practicing medicine require evolution to be true?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Edgar

@Klax

It’s a rational fact. Axiomatic.

You appear to be conflating a theory with a fact. It seems to me that very little of the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor can actually be proven to be factual.

Not at all. It’s a rational fact. Axiomatic. You know what that means don’t you? It is a self evident truth, an inescapable conclusion, an absolute certainty with greater corollaries than you can possibly imagine.

Unless you have a dialectically superior antithesis to the rational synthesis? I.e. an alternative theory. And no, it’s not that.

It’s just a detective story of a four billion year stream we can’t actually walk up. What fascinates me is the origin of angiosperms.

[Ani99]

@Edgar

No theory per se ever treated a disease - however, an application of a theory is a different matter entirely.

The OP is concerned with practical applications of the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. In the fields of biology and medicine, many a fancy evolutionary explanation/theory based on common ancestry has no practical application at all - they just stories.

We still need the theory before we can make an application.
Evolutionary explanation have been called theories but in fact they are not theories in the scientific sense. A theory is the result of finding evidence and establishing facts. The evolutionary theory itself, in my opinion, is not a theory. It is only a hypothesis. The whole lot rests on “we see different species arise at different times” and “we see more complex organisms later in the geological layers”. So what? :That doesn’t say that one evolved from the other.
I don’t see any evolutionary stories have any bearing on medicine. And in some cases there is dire consequences trying to see things “in the light of evolution”. Look at the cancer clonal evolutionary theory. They are claiming the cancer cells that are different, which they call clones have arisen from random mutations and natural selection, i.e., evolved. And they give treatments, chemotherapy for instance, to kill the cancer. What they have found is that the cancer often comes back with a vengeance and is, in their terminology “chemo resistant”.

And this is done in the face of knowing for the last 20 years or more that there are cancer stem cells that are produced by the body. Without the cancer stem cells there is no cancer. Nothing to do with evolution. But despite the huge volume of evidence for the cancer stem cells they are still calling it a hypothesis. This is where the problem lies.

[Ani99]

@Edgar

Do you agree that the fossil record begins with simple forms of life, and that as time goes on, more complex forms of life appear?

That is not evidence of evolution. We cannot say that one evolved from the other.

[T_aquaticus]

@Edgar

Some scientists on this site claim that the theory-cum-fact of common descent is essential for understanding genetics.

And that is true. If you think I am wrong, then please try to scientifically explain why homologous exons shared between species have fewer differences than homologous introns, just as one example.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ani99

The whole lot rests on “we see different species arise at different times” and “we see more complex organisms later in the geological layers”.

That’s completely false. There is mountains of genetic evidence that you are ignoring, and it makes up the bulk of evidence for evolution. Fossils are just the icing on the cake.

@Ani99

And in some cases there is dire consequences trying to see things “in the light of evolution”. Look at the cancer clonal evolutionary theory. They are claiming the cancer cells that are different, which they call clones have arisen from random mutations and natural selection, i.e., evolved.

That has been confirmed in multiple scientific studies:

Inactivation of the p53 tumor suppressor is a frequent event in tumorigenesis. In most cases, the p53 gene is mutated, giving rise to a stable mutant protein whose accumulation is regarded as a hallmark of cancer cells. Mutant p53 proteins not only lose their tumor suppressive activities but often gain additional oncogenic functions that endow cells with growth and survival advantages. Interestingly, mutations in the p53 gene were shown to occur at different phases of the multistep process of malignant transformation, thus contributing differentially to tumor initiation, promotion, aggressiveness, and metastasis. Here, the authors review the different studies on the involvement of p53 inactivation at various stages of tumorigenesis and highlight the specific contribution of p53 mutations at each phase of cancer progression.
Mutations in the p53 Tumor Suppressor Gene - PMC

@Ani99

And this is done in the face of knowing for the last 20 years or more that there are cancer stem cells that are produced by the body.

What makes those stem cells cancerous is mutations.

[Randy]

I agree with @SkovandOfMitaze that for something to be true, it doesn’t have to be practically applicable in all disciplines. I have lots of colleagues who are YEC and have no trouble with conscious cognitive dissonance with how they work from day to day. However, as you get more into research and really look at what even primary care are doing, common descent and evolution become more and more evident. Also, as time goes on, evolution just makes way more sense to me as I’m aware of the science of what I read about in my work.

In another discipline, Glenn Morton trained as YEC and had to drop it as he learned more of his work in searching for petroleum. He had to admit there was nothing that helped him from a YEC perspective in his work, whereas all the evidence fit an old, old earth.

Genesis is history and can’t be forced to fit with evolutionary theory - Open Forum / Biblical Interpretation - The BioLogos Forum

Thanks.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Ani99

Evolutionary explanation have been called theories but in fact they are not theories in the scientific sense.

Evolutionary theory is based on general principles which explain life in the natural world, and is definitely scientific. But at least you are not using theory in the sense of tentative, so that is good.

[Patrick_S]

@Randy

In another discipline, Glenn Morton trained as YEC and had to drop it as he learned more of his work in searching for petroleum. He had to admit there was nothing that helped him from a YEC perspective in his work, whereas all the evidence fit an old, old earth.

YEC cannot be is not predictive of anything in past geology, other than the earth not being created to take billions of years to become Eden. It was created as Eden, fully clothed with a living biosphere. This is not for this thread though.

[Edgar]

@Klax

Not at all. It’s a rational fact. Axiomatic. You know what that means don’t you? It is a self evident truth, an inescapable conclusion, an absolute certainty with greater corollaries than you can possibly imagine.

I’ve never heard of a “rational fact” - what is it? However, I have heard of a “fact”, which is something that can be empirically demonstrated to be true.

You cannot empirically demonstrate that birds evolved from a reptile by means of any neo-Darwinian process, for example, so it is not a fact. It might be “axiomatic” to you, but it isn’t to everyone.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Edgar

a “rational fact” - what is it?

That’s as opposed to an irrational fact. Oh, and don’t forget parsimonious facts. They are as opposed to prodigal facts.

[Edgar]

@Ani99

We still need the theory before we can make an application.

Agreed - although not all scientific applications need a theory.

Evolutionary explanation have been called theories but in fact they are not theories in the scientific sense.

I agree, but try telling that to all those evolutionary scientists out there who publish articles, papers and even books filled with untestable theories about what might have happend millions/billions of years ago! They seem to think they’re talking science, but it seems to me they’re just telling pseudo-scientific stories. This is one reason I am wary of the so-called science of evolution - a lot of it doesn’t even qualify as science, but it gets passed of as such.

A theory is the result of finding evidence and establishing facts. The evolutionary theory itself, in my opinion, is not a theory. It is only a hypothesis. The whole lot rests on “we see different species arise at different times” and “we see more complex organisms later in the geological layers”. So what? :That doesn’t say that one evolved from the other.

As I said previously, very little of what evolutionists claim about what happened millions of years ago can be demonstrated to be factual. Plenty of theories and stories, but facts are rather thin on the ground.

I don’t see any evolutionary stories have any bearing on medicine.

I been quizzing science professionals (including biologists and doctors) about this matter for years, and you’d be surprised how many of these otherwise highly intelligent people mistakenly think that an evolutionary explanation (often untestable) for how something came to exist must be useful. But most of the time, these Darwinian stories are completely irrelevant to applied science and amount to just blowing smoke.

[Edgar]

@Ani99

That is not evidence of evolution.

That’s incorrect. The fossil record is evidence of biological/ Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record - but that doesn’t mean it’s the truth.

We cannot say that one evolved from the other.

I’m not claiming that it did. I’m saying the fossil evidence reveals distinct and profound changes in life-forms over a long period of time, beginning with relatively simple organisms, after which appear more complex organisms - a pattern that could loosely be described as a pattern of “evolution”. I don’t know what process was responsible for that pattern of “evolution” and I don’t think anyone can ever know, but I don’t believe the fossil record is the result of a process of contiguous biological evolution, as claimed by Darwinists.
I believe the fossil record is a result of divine miracles, in which case scientific explanations are a waste of time, not to mention, bound to be erroneous.

@Dale

That’s as opposed to an irrational fact.

In that case, what is an “irrational fact”?

[Edgar]

@T_aquaticus

And that is true. If you think I am wrong, then please try to scientifically explain why homologous exons shared between species have fewer differences than homologous introns, just as one example.

My apologies - the wording in my post could have been improved - I accept that common descent can be a reasonable explanation for certain genetic observations. But an explanation for an observation doesn’t necessarily equates to an “understanding”. That may sometimes prove be true, but the history of science is littered with claims of “understanding” that turned out to be “misunderstanding”.

@Randy

In another discipline, Glenn Morton trained as YEC and had to drop it as he learned more of his work in searching for petroleum. He had to admit there was nothing that helped him from a YEC perspective in his work, whereas all the evidence fit an old, old earth.

A YEC would certainly have a great deal of trouble explaining the predictable patterns of organisms found in ancient strata that geologists make use of. Evolution offers the best scientific explanation for those patterns, although I think it’s debatable whether that particular explanation is necessary in order to render said patterns useful to geologists looking for oil or gas.

Does a geologist need to know why such patterns exist, or does he simply have to be aware of the patterns themselves?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Edgar

@Klax

Not at all. It’s a rational fact. Axiomatic. You know what that means don’t you? It is a self evident truth, an inescapable conclusion, an absolute certainty with greater corollaries than you can possibly imagine.

I’ve never heard of a “rational fact” - what is it? However, I have heard of a “fact”, which is something that can be empirically demonstrated to be true.

You cannot empirically demonstrate that birds evolved from a reptile by means of any neo-Darwinian process, for example, so it is not a fact. It might be “axiomatic” to you, but it isn’t to everyone.

You have now. I’m sure there’ll be a proper term, but that’s mine. Empiricism - science - is irrelevant, except as the uniformitarian basis of extrapolation to eternity. It’s axiomatic to all rational thinkers. Those who think that far. No magic occurred in the Jurassic in the transition from reptiles to birds or in the Carboniferous transition from gymnosperms to angiosperms, which is far more mysterious.

Later. OK, for ‘rational truth’ try truth as per correspondence and coherence theories aka common sense. Magic doesn’t come in to any truth category.

[Randy]

@Edgar

Does a geologist need to know why such patterns exist, or does he simply have to be aware of the patterns themselves?

I think I was unclear and conflated age of the earth with evolution. His link regarding worms and strata was convincing in terms of the extreme age of the earth. A young earth would not fit these observations. I don’t recall the specifics of his predictions though. Thanks…

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Edgar

…what is an “irrational fact”?

If you say it with your tongue in your cheek, it’s easier to understand.

We need a Klaxian glossary to translate his strange diction into English.

[T_aquaticus]

@Edgar

My apologies - the wording in my post could have been improved - I accept that common descent can be a reasonable explanation for certain genetic observations. But an explanation for an observation doesn’t necessarily equates to an “understanding”.

Yeah, it does. When observations are exactly what your explanation predicts they will be then you have an understanding of what causes those observations. That’s how science works.

@Edgar

Does a geologist need to know why such patterns exist, or does he simply have to be aware of the patterns themselves?

I work in the field of molecular biology, so I will defer to the late Glenn Morton who worked in the field of gas and oil discovery:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
–Glenn Morton
Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

[Ani99]

@T_aquaticus

@Ani99

The whole lot rests on “we see different species arise at different times” and “we see more complex organisms later in the geological layers”.

That’s completely false. There is mountains of genetic evidence that you are ignoring, and it makes up the bulk of evidence for evolution. Fossils are just the icing on the cake.

@Ani99

And in some cases there is dire consequences trying to see things “in the light of evolution”. Look at the cancer clonal evolutionary theory. They are claiming the cancer cells that are different, which they call clones have arisen from random mutations and natural selection, i.e., evolved.

That has been confirmed in multiple scientific studies:

Inactivation of the p53 tumor suppressor is a frequent event in tumorigenesis. In most cases, the p53 gene is mutated, giving rise to a stable mutant protein whose accumulation is regarded as a hallmark of cancer cells. Mutant p53 proteins not only lose their tumor suppressive activities but often gain additional oncogenic functions that endow cells with growth and survival advantages. Interestingly, mutations in the p53 gene were shown to occur at different phases of the multistep process of malignant transformation, thus contributing differentially to tumor initiation, promotion, aggressiveness, and metastasis. Here, the authors review the different studies on the involvement of p53 inactivation at various stages of tumorigenesis and highlight the specific contribution of p53 mutations at each phase of cancer progression.

Mutations in the p53 Tumor Suppressor Gene - PMC

@Ani99

And this is done in the face of knowing for the last 20 years or more that there are cancer stem cells that are produced by the body.

What makes those stem cells cancerous is mutations.

Genetic evidence for evolution? How about pointing to some.
The cancer clonal evolutionary… errr hypothesis has not been proven at all. Sure, we can see a mutation when a mutagen is applied to a cell culture. We may also see transformed cells in many cases but they never develop into cancer cells.

Now for the matter of the p53 gene being mutated.

P53 in normal cells and wound healing
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590919302759

Acceleration of cutaneous wound healing by transient p53 inhibition - PubMed

(the full paper in Nature: [Acceleration of Cutaneous Wound Healing by Transient p53 Inhibition | Laboratory Investigation (nature.com)] (Acceleration of Cutaneous Wound Healing by Transient p53 Inhibition | Laboratory Investigation)

AND
80% of cancers are not caused by mutations:

Epistemology of the origin of cancer: a new paradigm

[Patrick_S]

@Ani99

80% of cancers are not caused by mutations:

How many are caused by rogue bits of DNA in vaccines?

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Just a quick google will show no large studies that show an association with increased cancer risk, with the possible exception of a contaminated polio vaccine in the 1950’s that a virus contamination may have had some effect. In that case, it was not the vaccine but a viral contaminate that caused the problem, and that is no longer a problem.

In contrast, some vaccines actually are associated with a lower risk of childhood leukemia, and of course the HPV vaccine which prevents some carcinogenic strains of the virus prevents cervical cancer and oral pharyngeal cancer, Hepatitis B vaccine helps prevent liver cancer due to hepatitis B.

I am curious as to your question, as it seems based on suspect information. Care to share your source, as it would be interesting to see?