Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 04-16-2002, 06:06 AM

Thanks for your swift reply DNA!

Quote:

Oolon: Only to the extent that one can drive a car without knowing what goes on under the bonnet.

DNAunion: Seriously flawed rebuttal.

The analogy to evolution of an existing heartworm would be the HISTORICAL LINEAGE of the automobile: knowing what a Model T and an Etzel (or whateever) [sic] were and how a particular contemporary car evolved from which ancestors and how. Knowing that kind of stuff IS totally irrelevant to driving a car.

Yeah, I know. But that wasn�t the rebuttal, so it isn�t flawed. This was:

Quote:

Oolon: That�s fine in its way. But if you take your car to the garage, you expect the mechanics to know why upgrading the carb will improve performance.

DNAunion: No I wouldn't.

The last "dozen" cars I have had had fuel injection. It wouldn't bother me a bit if the dude didn't even know what a carbeurator was (look, those things are so old I don't even know if I spelled it right).

Okay, pick something else. Why do I want fuel injection? Why an aluminium engine? Alloy wheels? What does [insert favourite underbonnet performance-enhancer] do for me? These are reasonable questions, and we�d expect the folks fitting them to know why they are benefits. Similarly, if a vet has an understanding of the adaptations (adaptations, of course, being explained by evolution) to its lifestyle the heartworm has, he can also understand how a particular drug works. He doesn�t have to know how, but we reasonably expect experts to know a bit more than just medication-by-numbers.

Quote:

DNAunion: Not really. They would gain so little usable knowledge from knowing that our eyes evolved from those of amphioxus-like organisms.

But you�d hope they knew they�d evolved, yeah? That they�d know not just that the retina has a blindspot, but why?

Quote:

DNAunion: Hogwash.

The worms' life cycle can be fully studied and completely understood right here in the here and now; a historical perspective and/or evolutionary theory is not needed: just good old biology.

Hogwash yerself. The worm�s biology is only fully understood by knowing that life has a long history. It cannot be completely understood without knowing this, because evolution explains the adaptations of it to its lifestyle, why it does what it does. Without the underlying theory, it�s just a collection of facts. Not understanding.

Quote:

DNAunion: Sure, experts that deal with things that exist today - contemporary cars with fuel injection, heartworms, etc. - should have an idea about what's going on; not what supposedly went on. If they know how these extant things are put together and function - here.....now.... - then they can do their jobs perfectly well.

Nope, because evolution isn�t just in the past. I notice you didn�t comment about pharmacists and antibiotics. Same point about heartworms. Why, for instance, should your dog complete its Ivermectin course?

The crux of it...

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
DNAunion: No, I am not saying that [they can do their stuff without even a cursory understanding of evolution] ...pay attention.

I was, and that�s what it sounded like.

Quote:

The comment was made that a cursory understanding is not enough and that a full course on evolutionary theory was required. I don't agree that "med/vet" students need to complete a full course on evolutionary theory.

Fair enough, we were talking at cross purposes. However, it seems that evolution only gets introduced at all in courses specifically on it, because, like you say, it is possible to study the present without knowing the past, and likely also because of creationist opposition. The understanding produced is incomplete, but it can be good enough to get by. Because it�s not included in other courses, people can go through whole biology and medical degrees and not have been introduced to it at all, or only so vaguely that they (despite being in principle qualified in these subjects) are just as open to creationist misinformation and pseudoargument as anyone else. That is what is "SO disappointing".

TTFN, Oolon

MrDarwin · 04-16-2002, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:

If I need a prescription to ward off a bacterial infection, does the pharmacist HAVE TO KNOW the difference between allopatric and sympatric speciation?

It might be good if the pharmacist knew something about the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Quote:

If I go to the doctor because I have a a detached retina, does the doctor HAVE TO KNOW that vertebrate eyes evolved from those of amphioxus?

Gee, I wonder if doctors practice their surgery on human cadavers, or on other mammal species, or on fish? (Actually, the amphioxus does not have eyes.) Does it make any difference? Heck, squid eyes are really big and easy to get; why not use those to practice on?

So yes, I think it does make a difference if doctors understand that the different kinds of eyes are different in their anatomy and physiology, and why. Especially when it comes to devising new treatments or surgical methods, success is more likely in practicing on those eyes most similar to our own, which can be accurately predicted by evolutionary relationships (i.e., a monkey eye is going to be more similar, both in anatomy and physiology, to a human eye than is a sheep eye, and any of these will be more similar than a rabbit eye).

MrDarwin · 04-16-2002, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:

The worms' life cycle can be fully studied and completely understood right here in the here and now; a historical perspective and/or evolutionary theory is not needed: just good old biology.

Except that a vet is not dealing just with heartworms.

If a treatment were devised for another internal parasite, would that treatment be more or less likely to succeed with heartworm? Would it depend on how closely that other parasite was related to heartworm?

Does the same parasite get the same treatment if it occurs in two different animals species?

And I wonder what a vet would do, confronted with a new or unfamiliar parasite similar to, but not quite the same as, heartworm?

Kevin · 04-16-2002, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
DNAunion: No reply yet. Okay, I'll ask again.

Here's a helpful hint: you'll get farther in discussion if you don't repost a message when we can all see the original, three hours after you posted the original, as if we had nothing better to do than hang on your every word. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I have seen this in two threads, and I think such a childish behaviour needs to be ignored and not fed, so I will from now on.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-16-2002, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangloss:
Not that I really want a reply from Rick

I guess I�d better point out that (I guess) the Rick in question must be DNAunion, not our own estimable instinct-denier

and former moderator Dr Rick (rbochnermd), who also posted above.

Thanks for the link there pangloss. Talking of irony (which I thought Americans didn�t do

), I was intrigued by the previous post to your first linked one:

Quote:

DNAunion: By the way Wolf, your attitude is inflammatory, abrasive, and unacceptable. Here are some of your comments from your last post:

>>>Wolf: Nonsense. You're applying a flawed analogy in a desperate attempt to prove I'm wrong and failing miserably!

>>>Wolf: You don't understand what I'm talking about and/or are trying to confuse the issue by changing the subject.

>>>Wolf: You're just trying to confuse the issuye, as usual, in order to obscure the main point here�

>>>Wolf: Says you.

>>>Wolf: Apples and oranges, DNA! You know perfectly well that the watch cover is only a dispensible accessory.

>>>Wolf: Yet your interpretation adds equivocation rather than removing it.

For your several transgressions, I am banning you from this site.

(Oolon�s emphasis)

Hmmm. Compare those to these. From the present thread:

Quote:

DNAunion: Hogwash.

From <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000489&p=2" target="_blank">this thread</a>:

Quote:

DNAunion: Uhm, could it have been because you are a couple of "flaming homos" instead of because you are an interracial couple?

Or was your "us white guys" kind of slang for "use white people"?

From <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000620" target="_blank">this thread</a>:

Quote:

You take the cake for your bringing up the irrelevant distant past out of thin air, and doing so in a misleading fashion. Only a real asshole would do something like that...and you did! I knew I could count on you to be the most immature asswipe in the world, and you didn't let me down one bit!

and

Quote:

DNAunion: Or maybe you would like to openly admit that you are being an asshole. No, wait....no need...your childish antangonism is already speaking for itself!

I found those by a quick browse through 'recent posts'. As pangloss said, the irony (or is it hypocrisy?) is too rich...

From the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">Forum rules and policies</a>

Quote:

(2) You will not post material that is knowingly defamatory, illegal, abusive, threatening, harassing, or racially offensive. As with anything, you will use good common sense. In other words, you agree not to be a jerk.
(Oolon�s emphasis.)

Well Mr Union, how about we practise what you preach. I don't see why you should not be banned from this site.

TTFN, Oolon

MrDarwin · 04-16-2002, 06:51 AM

Simple question for DNAUnion:

If you were a veterinarian, and somebody brought you their pet skunk to treat, and you had never treated a skunk before, how would you decide upon (a) a diagnosis and (b) a course of treatment?

Oolon Colluphid · 04-16-2002, 08:44 AM

The Evolution article I referenced above is online <a href="http://biology.queensu.ca/~bio439/Antolin&Herbers01.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> (pdf). The whole thing is interesting, but it contains the following closing comments which are even more relevant to this thread:

Quote:

The woeful level of scientific illiteracy in American society is partly our fault, and we recommend three ways that colleges and universities can contribute to creating a sciencesavvy public. First, we must ensure that science courses for nonmajors include training in critical thinking and scientific methodology. We must also stress the limitations of science�s domain; we have found that our students are relieved and comforted to learn that science does not require an atheistic philosophy. Second, we must teach future primary and secondary school teachers the process of science. Just as we require that teachers participate in student teaching to hone their skills, we also must give them opportunities to gain hands-on experience in original research. Third, we must provide continuing education for practicing teachers, including workshops, internships, and teachers in residence programs. These pay quick dividends: a teacher who participated in a summer internship several years ago told us the research experience taught him how much science depends upon attention to small details, in addition to broad theoretical frameworks. When it comes to science and science education, the ongoing creation-evolution debate shows that the devil really is in the details.

Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 04-16-2002, 09:15 AM

Again from that article... now I�ve been able to read it properly (I�d found it looking for Baby Fae originally), this whole bit is relevant. (It�s only about a 1/10th of the article, so hopefully this is fair usage!)

Quote:

WHY IS SPECIFIC TRAINING IN EVOLUTION IMPORTANT
FOR SCIENCE?

Having described the most common creationist arguments we hear from students and neighbors, we return to the question of why should we be concerned about evolution�s current struggle for existence in public schools. If teaching evolution is challenged because of religious objections, how might that hamper individuals who are not taught about evolution or are taught that evolution has no place in science?

It is unlikely that such individuals will understand the interplay and differences between the domains of science and the domains of religion; nor are they likely to appreciate the role of science in social policy. A public increasingly disconnected from general scientific knowledge and skepticism is susceptible to pseudoscientific claims that play on gullibility (e.g., see Shermer 1997). Here we describe how ignorance of evolutionary science has consequences for medicine, traditional agriculture, and use of genetically modified organisms (see also Ehrlich 2000). For each case, we describe how understanding both microevolution and macroevolution could be important.

Medicine. The discovery and use of antimicrobial drugs, which control protists, fungi, bacteria, and viruses, have reduced deaths caused by formerly common maladies like malaria, tuberculosis, and pneumonia, at least in the industrialized parts of the world. Aggressive use of vaccines allowed the World Health Organization to eliminate smallpox in the wild a few years ago. However, extensive use of antimicrobial pharmaceuticals has induced microbes to evolve resistance at an alarming rate (WHO 2000). Overuse and misuse of antibiotics, both in human health and in agriculture, combined with increased world travel and a global food supply, have selected for high levels of resistance in widespread bacteria like Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella enterica in the United States (DHHS 2000).

More alarming is the recent understanding that resistance in bacteria and viruses not only arises within populations but is also acquired via horizontal gene transfer between populations and between species. Combating resistance will require exactly the same approaches that evolutionary biologists use to study adaptations in any organism: understanding heritable variation in traits and identifying environmental circumstances that cause individuals with particular traits to survive and reproduce.

The concept of common descent, or macroevolution, also underlies medical protocols. Pharmaceuticals are first tried on mammals such as mice, rats, and dogs; promising candidates may then be tested on primates before clinical trials with human volunteers commence. Thus, biomedical research is directed by the understanding that the species phylogenetically closest to humans have the most similar physiology to humans. In particular, consider organ transplants. Because the number of patients requiring organ transplants generally exceeds the supply of human organs, xenotransplantation (cross-species donation) is an active area of research (Auchincloss and Sachs 1998).

One of the best-known cases is Baby Fae, an infant born with an underdeveloped heart who was given the heart of a baboon at Loma Linda University Medical Center (Loma Linda, CA), in 1984 (Bailey et al. 1985). The baboon donor was one of five that had been tested for immunological similarity based on three HLA genes. Three baboons showed relatively low responses to the infant�s lymphocytes, and the baboon with the lowest immunological response was chosen as donor. Baby Fae survived for 20 days after surgery with the help of the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine, but eventually died from rejection of the transplanted heart and other organ failure. The main cause of failure was a mismatch of ABO antigens between the baboon (blood type A) and the infant (type O).

Ethical and procedural questions aside, a troubling aspect of the story is that Leonard Bailey, the lead surgeon for Baby Fae�s operation, when interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1985), admitted to being a fundamentalist. Bailey described how he chose baboons as donors because their hearts were the right size and were available. Furthermore he said, ��The scientists that are keen on the evolutionary concept that we actually developed serially from subhuman primates to humans, with mitochondrial DNA dating and that sort of thing, the differences have to do with millions of years. That boggles my mind somehow. I don�t understand it well, and I�m not sure that it means a great deal in terms of tissue homology.��

Further comment seems superfluous, but we note that all subsequent infant transplants by Bailey�s group at Loma Linda have used human donors. Research on xenotransplants continues in many laboratories, and we urge all such researchers to include evolutionary rationales in their protocols.

Agriculture. Farmers and breeders have always used principles of selection, and Darwin drew considerable support for his theory of evolution by natural selection by invoking the parallel process of artificial selection used in agriculture. Thus, the development of disease-resistant wheat, high-yield soybean cultivars, and lean beef relies on application of principles of selection. The other face of selection in agriculture is the parallel with microbial resistance to antibiotics: resistance to pesticides and herbicides is a serious problem in agricultural systems (Georgiou and Mellon 1983; NRC 2000). Evolution of resistance occurred rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century after the application of compounds like chlorinated hydrocarbons became common. Currently more than 1000 species of plants, animals, and microbes are resistant to one or more major pesticide or herbicide.

The utility of common descent in agriculture is seen in the quest for the genetic variation needed to increase agronomic yield or tolerance to various pests and pathogens. We can focus our search for new genetic variation by understanding the phylogenetic relationships between domesticated species and their wild relatives. The search is further aided by knowing the historical geographic distributions of domesticated species, and that centers of origin of plant groups usually define where crops have their greatest genetic diversity (Vavilov 1992).

Biotechnology. Plant breeders consistently use the tools of molecular biology to engineer varieties with desirable traits. For example, genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringensis have been inserted into maize and a number of other plant species. These genes cause the maize to express Cry proteins that kill several kinds of pests (Lepidoptera and Coleoptera), thereby improving yield and reducing pesticide use. Many in the public fear potential effects on human health, such as allergic reaction, so that transgenic varieties have not been approved for human consumption. A continual risk of growing such engineered crops is horizontal transfer�escape of transferred genes into other natural or cultivated populations. Essentially an evolutionary and ecological problem, horizontal transfer occurs by gene flow when pollen from the engineered plants fertilizes ova in nearby populations. Indeed, the Cry9C toxin from Starlink corn has been found in nearby fields planted with other cultivars, and whether the gene can be removed from the global maize crop is not yet known (New York Times, June 10, 2001).

The prospect of horizontal transfer is especially frightening if genes designed to prevent losses to pests or bad weather become established in weed populations. The problem of horizontal gene transfer was a surprise to biotechnologists who understood neither the evolutionary history of their crops nor the extent of hybridization between crop species and their wild relatives. Hybridization is less common across animal species, yet does occur in groups like fish. Thus, field experiments on coho salmon engineered to express growth hormone genes originating from arctic char must be carefully controlled to assess the environmental impacts if the growth gene were to be accidentally transferred into natural salmon populations.

Would researchers in these fields (medicine, agriculture, biotechnology) have acted differently if they fully understood the principles of evolution? Surely the above examples illustrate that introducing powerful environmental agents like antibiotics, pesticides, or genetically modified crops can lead to equally powerful evolutionary responses in both target and nontarget species. Given a world economy that now depends on interventions like antibiotics and pesticides, we argue that knowledge of evolutionary biology should be used to develop policies that might circumvent problems such as disease resistance and horizontal transfer. This requires that all biologists, not just those interested in organismal biology, be specifically trained in principles of evolutionary biology. Physicians, agronomists, and policymakers alike should learn how to formulate questions about evolutionary changes in natural and managed populations and how to develop informed hypotheses about possible outcomes.
(My emphasis)

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

MrDarwin · 04-16-2002, 09:29 AM

Hey moderator, is there a copyright infringement issue here? I thought such long direct quotes from published material or websites were discouraged.

Dr Rick · 04-16-2002, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
On what part? All of them? What about this one?...

I agree with all of it. In medicine, the more one knows about one's field, the more one is likely to understand it. The more one understands it, the more one is likely to perform in it well. One needs to know about and understand biology to perform well in the applied life sciences, and an understanding of evolution is essential to understanding biology.

Understanding the scientific method as it applies to the life sciences is also important if one expects its practioneers to apply scientific knowledge in a practical way. Failure to appreciate the non-scientific nature of creation idealogy is an indication that the believer does not completely understand or at least cannot fully apply the scientific method.

Posted by the Rick who has never had the instinct to post on a Yahoo board.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-16-2002, 06:51 AM	#16
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Simple question for DNAUnion: If you were a veterinarian, and somebody brought you their pet skunk to treat, and you had never treated a skunk before, how would you decide upon (a) a diagnosis and (b) a course of treatment?

04-16-2002, 09:29 AM	#19
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Hey moderator, is there a copyright infringement issue here? I thought such long direct quotes from published material or websites were discouraged.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.