Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 09-14-2002, 10:24 PM

Creationists often complain that evolution has no use and is thus worthless. Of course this is a rather silly argument since the accuracy of science does not depend on its worth. That being said, evolution is extremely useful. Without evolution, the entire biotechnology industry would not exist. Evolution is what allows them to successfully clone and manipulate genes. Without evolution, the biotech industry would not have produced such life saving drugs as Epogen� (treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure and Retrovir-treated HIV-infected patients). For a complete list of approved biotech drugs, visit <a href="http://www.bio.org/er/approveddrugs.asp" target="_blank">BIO</a>.

It is very clear that evolution has had impacts both medically and commercially. Obviously the only people who don�t care about such things would think that evolution is worthless. I wonder if creationists have any available replacement that can generate as much medicine and commerce?

It is not only important to understand evolution, but it is important to not forget it when forming public policy. Take for example the plight of fisheries, which are being rapidly overfished and must be controlled to insure the survival of the fish and the industry. Scientists reported earlier this summer (Conover & Munch 2002) that heavy fishing can quickly affect the size of the fish. They concluded that, to prevent the population from evolving to a non-commercial state, both minimum and maximum size requirements should be placed on the catch. A public policy that ignores such obvious biological responses to human actions is not going to be a waste of money and political maneuvering.

Conover DO, Munch SB. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science. 2002 Jul 5;297(5578):94-6.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

Vanderzyden · 09-15-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Without evolution, the entire biotechnology industry would not exist.

Perhaps you could demonstrate how evolutionary hypothesis has contributed to biotechnological advance.

Vanderzyden

Kevin Dorner · 09-15-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Perhaps you could demonstrate how evolutionary hypothesis has contributed to biotechnological advance.

If he wasn't trying to do that, just what was he trying to demonstrate then?

Several posters and moderators have asked you thus far to demonstrate how the incorporation, that you insist on, of religious elements (such as ID) into scientific methodology demonstrably assists the progession of science. They haven't received an answer yet from you, so your request for a demonstration seems ironic.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

Valentine Pontifex · 09-15-2002, 08:59 AM

Vander is quite correct in what he said. Rufus did not demonstrate any benefit that evolution has done for drug development, he merely asserted it and showed a chart showing the number of drugs going up which is a complete non sequitur.

Yes, evolution is of vital importance to the biotech industry, but merely saying that it does not make it so. Rufus, you must not assert your thesis but rather you must demonstrate it.

Quote:

Without evolution, the biotech industry would not have produced such life saving drugs as Epogen� (treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure and Retrovir-treated HIV-infected patients).

Hey that is great, now tell how evolutionary biology helped produce the drug in question. Vander is entitled to at least that much.

It is not enough to be correct, you must actually show that you are correct.

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 09:03 AM

Vanderzyden,

These studies were made possible by using the assumption that we descended from other animals. All genetic manipulation studies take advantage of evolutionary and genetic principles.

Here's an excellent webiste that I found (unfortunately it uses that pesky word "darwinian" which I really hate, but that's life. Oh well I'll get over it.)

<a href="http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:cKg2xSbMDxkC:www.direct-ms.org/articles/DarwinianMedicine.pdf+evolution+benefits+medicine& hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">What is Darwinian Medicine?</a>

Here's some highlights:

Quote:

Darwinian medicine is the enterprise of trying to find evolutionary explanations for
vulnerabilities to disease. Every trait needs an evolutionary as well as a proximate
explanation. Disease, not being a product of selection, would seem to be excluded. This is
one reason why doctors have not realized that evolution might be useful. Another reason
is that medical research looks for differences between individuals in order to explain why
one person gets sick while another stays healthy. But Darwinian Medicine does not seek
evolutionary explanations for disease itself, and does not usually try to understand why
one individual becomes ill when another does not. Instead, it tries to understand why all
humans are vulnerable to each disease. It asks how it is possible that natural selection can
shape the eye or heart or brain but cannot eliminate our vulnerabilities to nearsightedness,
atherosclerosis, depression, or cancer. Darwinian Medicine applies the advances that
have revolutionized evolutionary biology to the problems of medicine and tries to provide, for each disease, an explanation for why the body isn't better.
...
Much of clinical medicine relieves people's discomfort by blocking defenses like fever, pain, nausea and diarrhea. How can this be safe? Just as smoke detectors are designed to give many annoying but inexpensive false alarms so that they are sure to warn about any actual fire, the mechanisms that regulate the body's defenses have evolved to express defenses whenever they are possibly useful, thus causing much unnecessary suffering.

Infections are neither a divine punishment nor an arbitrary failing, but merely a contest
between our bodies and smaller organisms that want to eat us. Because these viruses and
bacteria reproduce so rapidly, they evolve faster than we can, so we cannot escape them.
We can and do, however, evolve weapons of ever more subtle destruction. They, in turn,
evolve ever more sophisticated ways to escape our defenses. Is evolution moving towards
some happy accommodation? Not at all. This is war to the death, except, that is, when
death is not in the pathogen's interests.

Genes that cause disease usually turn out not to be simple mistakes. Many offer a benefit,
like the sickle cell gene that protects against malaria, or a tendency to gout that may delay
aging. The gene that causes cystic fibrosis may protect against death from dehydration.
Others, like most genes that cause nearsightedness and heart attacks, are harmless quirks for people who live in the natural environment; they cause problems only when they
interact with novel aspects of the modern world, like learning to read or a high fat diet.

Some "outlaw" genes even manage, by intracellular warfare with other genes, to get
themselves transmitted even though they harm the carrier. Even the genes that cause aging are not just accidents; many of them seem to have been selected because they offer benefits early in life. Before we use our new technologies to eliminate genes that cause diseases, we must consider the possibility that they also offer benefits.

Environmental factors that cause disease are mostly novel, new in the past 10,000 years, that is. Intermittent exposure to sunlight is novel and results in cancer. Suntan creams may,
paradoxically, cause even more cancer. We crave fat salt and sugar because they were in
short supply in the Paleolithic. Now these appetites prove more powerful than our
willpower and cause epidemics of obesity and atherosclerosis. We are well protected
against plant toxins, but cannot reliably detoxify novel substances. The differences
between the setting we evolved in and the setting we live in is vast and often dangerous.

Design compromises account for much disease. Just as there are costs associated with
many genes that offer an overall benefit, there are costs associated with every major
structural change preserved by natural selection. Walking upright gives us the ability to carry food and babies, but it predisposes us to back problems. Many of the body's apparent design flaws aren't simply mistakes, they are
just compromises. To better understand disease, we need to understand the hidden benefits of apparent mistakes in design.

Finally, evolution is an incremental process without the possibility of fresh starts. Our
food passes through a tube in front of the windpipe, and must cross it to get to the
stomach, thus exposing us to the danger of choking. It would be sensible to relocate the
nostrils to somewhere on the neck, but that will never happen.

In summary, Darwinian Medicine proposes that descriptions of disease in current medical
textbooks omit a crucial section - an evolutionary explanation for why humans are
vulnerable to this disease. Finding these explanations will have immediate practical
benefits for medical practice. General physicians still don't think of fever as useful and they still give iron supplements to patients with chronic infections. Infectious disease
specialists still think that pathogens evolve to benign co-existence. Psychiatrists still act
as if all anxiety, sadness, and jealousy is abnormal and they don't yet look for the
selective advantages of genes that predispose to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Rheumatologists don't know that the high uric acid levels of gout may have been selected
to slow aging and they prescribe anti-inflammatory agents that may hasten hip
degeneration. Obstetricians have not considered the possibility that nausea of pregnancy
may be a defense against toxins. The foundations for a new field of inquiry are now being
laid by many people including Ewald, Profet, Rose, Konner, Eaton, Buss, Cosmides,
Tooby, Diamond, Trivers, Durham, Austad, Ames, Daly, Wilson, and many others. It
will not be easy to explain all this to doctors. They will, like the reporters, imagine that
we are saying that disease is useful, or that we should let nature take her course or any
number of other misunderstandings that will no doubt rain on our heads for the next few
years. George Williams and I will be criticized for writing for a general audience, for
daring to speculate about the causes of disease before the research is done. But our goal is
not to prove any specific hypothesis, but to highlight a set of questions that are, we think,
genuinely new. As people take them seriously, the resulting research should prove
profoundly useful as well as most interesting.

Randolph M. Nesse, M.D. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Wow, I want to meet this guy!!!

scigirl

Undercurrent · 09-15-2002, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
These studies were made possible by using the assumption that we descended from other animals. All genetic manipulation studies take advantage of evolutionary and genetic principles.

Don't all trials of drugs on animals presuppose evolution? If it weren't for common descent, and the rough outline of which species are more closely related to us, there would be no reason to believe that the fact that a drug is safe for a mouse or a rabbit or a chimp is in any way related to whether or not it is safe for a human.

m.

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 10:13 AM

Ok do you really need to accept evolution in order to do medical research or discover drugs?

At first glance, the answer is "No." And the criticism of Rufus's assmption is valid - sure you could design an AIDS vaccine or a cure for cancer while simultaneously denying evolution.

But. . . is this really true? Does it actually happen that often?

Consider what an evolution-denier actually denies. Some accept microevolution but not macroevolution, some accept neither like our pal Douglas. But in all cases, the validity of the methods used to procure evolutionary evidence is in doubt by these people. Like Vanderzyden's denial of the chromosome fusion data. Would he fare well as a cancer researcher, when he at first denied the existence of chromosome fusions (one of the causes of cancer)?

And since fields of science are not discrete - they all overlap and interrelate - denial of one category of science is no doubt going to affect your ability to work in another. It would be like a bridge-builder who denied the physics behind road-building. Their bridge might span the river, but would YOU want to drive over it? I wouldn't!

Let's look at some examples:

From this website on drug discovery:

<a href="http://www.health.pitt.edu/academic/MM2001/drug.htm" target="_blank">http://www.health.pitt.edu/academic/MM2001/drug.htm</a>

Quote:

Every new drug starts with a basic scientific investigation at the molecular and cellular levels, and then moves through a phase of applied research...A company first performs laboratory and animal tests to discover how the drug works and whether or not it is probably safe.

So basically, what I gather from websites like this is that successful drug companies utilize basic biological principles. One of these basic principles is of course evolution. More importantly is the idea that evolutionary mechanisms are currently going on in each cell of our body. Our genes are still mutating, duplicating, etc. Whether we are using these explanations to understanding how we evolved from froggies, or how we get cancer, is irrelevant. The mechanisms and principles are the same. A person who denied evolution would be in a sense denying the same principles that cause disease.

Here's some more clips:
<a href="http://www.advancetechmonitor.com/Products/Reports/Industry_Reports/PG/PG_ES/PG_ES.html" target="_blank">Pharmacogenomics - Impact on Drug Discovery</a>

Quote:

Studies of genetic variation promise to provide an important route to the identification of genes that play a key role in the common diseases � e.g., coronary disease, hypertension, obesity, schizo-phrenia, Alzheimer�s disease � that constitute primary market targets for big pharma. Geneticists have long been preoccupied with studying simple single-gene diseases using familial linkage methods. Complex, high-incidence, multi-gene diseases are thought to require a different approach, for which SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) can play a key role in holding the size of required genetic studies down to manageable levels.

Several million SNPs exist in the human genome, and the largest SNP maps generated to date contain about 60,000 of them. Efforts, both public and private to generate much denser SNP maps are ongoing. The maps can be used in genome-wide studies of cases and controls designed to identify markers found only in one of those two groups. These markers, in turn, provide valuable clues to the location and identity of complex disease genes.

Now, SNPs are also used as evolutionary evidence, and many evolution-deniers either deny their existence, or they deny that methods used to study SNPs are valid (I saw this at the Baptist Board when I posted there as froggie). So. . . how effective would a YEC be in this lab if he/she didn't even think the methods worked?

Quote:

The ability of genomics to discover new drug targets is tempered by the realization that genetically complex, high-incidence diseases may involve defects in several genes acting in concert with environmental factors to produce disease. Thus new methods � those of pharmacogenomics � may be required to generate the radically new approaches required to produce improved drugs for these conditions. A new paradigm is evolving based on the intersection of emerging new technologies, shifting market realities, and evolving pharmaceutical industry economics.

Again, to understand genetically complex diseases, you have to buy in to the concept that these genetic mechanisms even exist. We have heard Vanderzyden recently state, "Mutation equations? Surely you realize that mutations aren't beneficial."

I have heard many creationists make that same claim. They see mutations as bad, period. This very simplistic view of genetics would be a huge stumbling block for anyone who tried to study the complicated genetics of cancer, autoimmune diseases, or metabolism disorders.

Compare and contrast the following two statements about genetics, and ask yourself - which paradigm would YOU want studying and curing cancer?

Quote:

Randolph M. Nesse, M.D. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI :
But Darwinian Medicine does not seek evolutionary explanations for disease itself, and does not usually try to understand why one individual becomes ill when another does not. Instead, it tries to understand why all humans are vulnerable to each disease. It asks how it is possible that natural selection can shape the eye or heart or brain but cannot eliminate our vulnerabilities to nearsightedness, atherosclerosis, depression, or cancer.[...]Genes that cause disease usually turn out not to be simple mistakes. Many offer a benefit, like the sickle cell gene that protects against malaria, or a tendency to gout that may delay aging. The gene that causes cystic fibrosis may protect against death from dehydration. Others, like most genes that cause nearsightedness and heart attacks, are harmless quirks for people who live in the natural environment; they cause problems only when they interact with novel aspects of the modern world, like learning to read or a high fat diet. Some "outlaw" genes even manage, by intracellular warfare with other genes, to get themselves transmitted even though they harm the carrier. Even the genes that cause aging are not just accidents; many of them seem to have been selected because they offer benefits early in life. Before we use our new technologies to eliminate genes that cause diseases, we must consider the possibility that they also offer benefits.

Or this one:

Quote:

. . . Douglas J Bender (paraphrase):
All mutations are bad.

I surely know which person I want studying diseases with complex genetic phenomenon!

How about some more examples. <a href="http://www.hanilmed.com/division/titleimg/cell/Cox-Molecular.html" target="_blank">Molecular Biology in Medicine</a>:

Quote:

Timothy M. Cox & John Sinclair
Molecular biology is beginning to attack problems beyond those posed by the study of viruses or isolated cells, whether they be prokaryotes or eukaryotes. Its methods are now being applied to questions concerning the control of development and differentiation of whole tissues and organs, as well as the function of neural net works. Tumour formation, embryology and neurobiology, once subjects for observation, are now susceptible to decisive experiment, a triumph of analytical reductionism.

In other words, a complete understanding of development, and how genes and environments interact to produce phenotypes, is very important to certain disease studies. Again, I think an evolution-denier could do these studies, but they would have some serious mental weirdness going on. Many of the principles which govern our development are foundations for evolution as well. For instance - understanding how dermatomes in a fetus are made, and how this relates to the nervous innervation of our limb muscles. This is crucial for a doctor who studies paralysis in a patient. Interestingly, these dermatome patterns are consistent across evolution - and we use chick or mouse embryos to study and analyze dermatomes. Why is this possible? Well because of evolutionary relationships. Dorso-ventral patterning, for instance, was worked out in fruit flies. The HOX and homeobox genes are simultaneously incredible evidence for evolution via gene duplication and very important concepts in embryology. An evolution denier would have to find a way to accept the HOX/homeobox similarities anyway in order to function in these labs. They would have some mental gymnastics to overcome, whereas someone who accepts evolution would have no such trouble.

Ok to summarize why you need to accept evolution to be a good medical/drug researcher:
1. Many diseases have complex genetics, and the researcher needs to move beyond simplistic ideas such as "all mutations are harmful."
2. Many methods used to design drugs take advantage of genetic theories that directly resulted from evolutionary studies, such as SNPs. Utilizing these methods to design drugs means first accepting and understanding these methods, and the data, very well.
3. Mechanisms of development rely on studying how embryological patterning shaped our evolutionary history. Understanding how our bodies form the complex inter-relationships of organs and tissues necessitates a good background in embryology and development. Thes two fields are very inter-woven with evolutionary theory.

By no means is this meant to be an exhaustive list. But I hope I've made my point (or rather supported Rufus's).

No, you don't need to accept evolution to design drugs, or be a decent doctor. You could still do PCR, or make a diagnosis. However, if you want to be really good - and make revolutionary discoveries in drug design and in medicine, it is important that you have a solid solid background in molecular biology or embryology, which means that they either accept evolution, or accept all the data and background info that evolution theory provided their particular field.

scigirl

**(note - do not confuse "evolution denier" with a theistic evolutionist or even some forms of ID that accept descent with modification and microevolution. I worked with several of these types, and they were excellent scientists. They believed in God, but also accepted biological principles)

Bubba · 09-15-2002, 10:35 AM

Thanks, Scigirl and Rufus!

The very fact that you make a point of not being critical of the scientific work of scientists who believe in thiestic evolution or some forms of ID should help lay to rest the old Chestnut that evolution is a concept that is incompatible with or hostile to the idea of God or Gods.

Chris

scigirl · 09-15-2002, 10:41 AM

Bubba,

I think they are completely compatible. My former boss is an evangelical christian. We had Mormons, Lutherans, Catholics, Muslims and Hindus in our department, with all sorts of ideas about how God or gods made the world and how He (they) continue to influence it. I had many entertaining and enlightening discussions with these guys. The most fun was me and the Mormon guy making fun of YECS together - that was hilarious.

But we were all able to think critically and scientifically. I think the diversity of beliefs is what makes science such a useful endeavor - no matter what your religious or political beliefs are, the language of science is the same. It unites a person in Jerusalem with a person in Palestine. I have personally seen how scientific collaberation still continues even in war-torn nations. The desire to understand our universe, and the questioning and skeptical attitute of scientists, has helped forge peace where religion has failed.

Ok I'll stop with the sappy stories now.

scigirl

RufusAtticus · 09-15-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Perhaps you could demonstrate how evolutionary hypothesis has contributed to biotechnological advance.

Biotechnology uses natural selection to sucessfully clone and retreive DNA fragments from organisms. This step is the most important one for generating genetically modified organisms. Such organisms can be used to produces vast quanties of drugs to save humans.

09-14-2002, 10:24 PM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Utility of Evolution Creationists often complain that evolution has no use and is thus worthless. Of course this is a rather silly argument since the accuracy of science does not depend on its worth. That being said, evolution is extremely useful. Without evolution, the entire biotechnology industry would not exist. Evolution is what allows them to successfully clone and manipulate genes. Without evolution, the biotech industry would not have produced such life saving drugs as Epogen� (treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure and Retrovir-treated HIV-infected patients). For a complete list of approved biotech drugs, visit <a href="http://www.bio.org/er/approveddrugs.asp" target="_blank">BIO</a>. It is very clear that evolution has had impacts both medically and commercially. Obviously the only people who don�t care about such things would think that evolution is worthless. I wonder if creationists have any available replacement that can generate as much medicine and commerce? It is not only important to understand evolution, but it is important to not forget it when forming public policy. Take for example the plight of fisheries, which are being rapidly overfished and must be controlled to insure the survival of the fish and the industry. Scientists reported earlier this summer (Conover & Munch 2002) that heavy fishing can quickly affect the size of the fish. They concluded that, to prevent the population from evolving to a non-commercial state, both minimum and maximum size requirements should be placed on the catch. A public policy that ignores such obvious biological responses to human actions is not going to be a waste of money and political maneuvering. Conover DO, Munch SB. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science. 2002 Jul 5;297(5578):94-6. [ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

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

09-15-2002, 10:35 AM	#8
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Thanks, Scigirl and Rufus! The very fact that you make a point of not being critical of the scientific work of scientists who believe in thiestic evolution or some forms of ID should help lay to rest the old Chestnut that evolution is a concept that is incompatible with or hostile to the idea of God or Gods. Chris

09-15-2002, 10:41 AM	#9
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Bubba, I think they are completely compatible. My former boss is an evangelical christian. We had Mormons, Lutherans, Catholics, Muslims and Hindus in our department, with all sorts of ideas about how God or gods made the world and how He (they) continue to influence it. I had many entertaining and enlightening discussions with these guys. The most fun was me and the Mormon guy making fun of YECS together - that was hilarious. But we were all able to think critically and scientifically. I think the diversity of beliefs is what makes science such a useful endeavor - no matter what your religious or political beliefs are, the language of science is the same. It unites a person in Jerusalem with a person in Palestine. I have personally seen how scientific collaberation still continues even in war-torn nations. The desire to understand our universe, and the questioning and skeptical attitute of scientists, has helped forge peace where religion has failed. Ok I'll stop with the sappy stories now. scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.