Kevin

-snip article from Nesse-

In that vein, you might be interested in Nesse and George Williams' <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0679746749/nationalcenter02/102-9957443-1345753" target="_blank">Why We Get Sick</a>, all about evolutionary medicine.

(Link included to the National Center for Science Education's Amazon store.)

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

This is in response to the Randolph M. Nesse article.

Ah, yes, more of the "poor design" compliants. As if mere man can improve upon his Maker. Outrageous!

An example:

Apes don't have back problems? Furthermore, I don't have back problems. What explains that? Hmmmmm....

He fails to mention the epiglottis, the flap that blocks the "windpipe" when food is swallowed. Also, he doesn't consider that air must be infrequently expelled from the stomach (burping). Hmmm....I wonder how that epiglottis just "happened to be".

Here we have yet another case of circular reasoning:

Why does every trait need an evolutionary explanation?

What do we have for a conclusion? Nothing but empty promises of future advancements:

This is by no means a demonstration, scigirl. Let's see if your subsequent post is any better.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

But the article doesn't mention the world "evolution" once. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that evolution is a basic priciple of biology. I know a pharmaceutical researcher, and he would fully disagree with your assertion. They don't rely on evolution. So why are you citing this article as a demostration of benefits of evolution?

But, genomics isn't evolutionary biology. Study of a particular genome, or comparing animal genomes, isn't evolutionary science itself. It is genetics, plain and simple. What I am looking for is a benefit of evolutionary biology.

--skipping all the other articles, since they are likely very similar--

Responses:

1. The complexity of disease has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Moving beyond the elementary knowledge that "all mutations are indeed harmful" is most certainly important for the researcher, but it doesn't mean that she must employ Darwinist philosophy in her thinking.

2. You fail to demonstrate that genetics derives from evolutionary theory. That indeed would be a benefit, but you have not shown it. We eagerly await this demonstration.

3. Embroyology is yet another pitiful "showcase" for evolution. Remember Haeckel? His scandals have been soundly refuted. Furthermore, increased understanding of how the embryo develops in a particular species is not conducive to a better understanding of supposed trans-species evolution. The Darwinists claim that their ideas underlying embryonic development, but they have not been persuasive. Not even suggestive.

Vanderzyden

lpetrich

Vanderzyden, are you claiming that it is impossible for us human beings to design anything?

And as a programmer, I have often improved on previously-existing designs.

VZ, do you really seriously advocate Panglossianism?

An alternative approach for avoiding choking is a common one: the windpipe sticks up into the back of the mouth, connecting to where the nose connects to the mouth. Apes and human babies have this arrangement, which has the side effect of limiting their repertoire of possible sounds. Moving the windpipe opening down enables a wider sound repertoire, but at the expense of vulnerability to choking.

A really intelligent creator would think of some less kludgy approach to allowing more speech sounds.

However, evolutionary biology is absolutely critical to comparative genomics; it indicates what sorts of things are worth looking for, like how to recognize genes with shared function, especially when that function strongly constrains those genes.

Much molecular evolution happens by "neutral selection" -- genetic drift. And the more that some gene is functionally constrained, the slower it evolves.

VZ, what's "Darwinist philosophy"? And how is "all mutations are harmful" supposed to be "elementary knowledge"?

VZ, since you are such an expert on Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings, you should have no trouble describing where they went wrong.

However, embryonic-development similarities were recognized before Ernst Haeckel made his infamous drawings, notably by Karl Ernst von Baer, and the similarities are now known to include similarities in developmental-control genes, like the famous Hox genes.

(edited to complete the comment on genomics and evolution)

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Who in their right mind would put waste disposal tubes in a recreational area?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Nope, they don't really.

And while you don't have back problems, LOTS of people do. Do you understand what "predisposes" means?

Pop_Quiz

When I stop laughing about JC's park service crack, I just want to say, in my limited layman's terms, doesn't the fossil record show sapiens or our precursors having first developed the ability structurally to speak 200,000 years ago? I know that coincides with mitochondrial Eve but apparently the ability to speak took time. What of Neanderthal? Genetically dissimilar from us but still able to generate more than simple grunts, where do they fit in the scheme of things? If to not breathe and swallow simultaneously is to be an adult human, doesn't that make them human, if only a cousin? Admitting they existed negates the Bible's version of things and denying them a place in the homo family is to regress them to animals; thus they were on the ark...but that negates carbon-dating.

simian

I know I am probably beating my head against a wall, but here is one significant example:

Clearfield sunflowers (one lay article can be found in "THE SUNFLOWER", January 2000, page2 18-20

Pursuit (an imidazoline (IMI) herbicide) is commonly used to control sunflowers (and other broadleaves) in soybean fields. After a number of years of soy monoculture, and 7 straight years using Pursuit, an IMI-resistant sunflower appeared. The sunflowers had developed a resistance to pursuit and the whole IMI family of herbicides. 1/4 of the plants in the field were still sensitive to IMI, 1/2 were partially resistant, 1/4 were completely resistant - to the point of being able to survive 32 times the recommended level of Pursuit. This is the result of at least 2 genes (maybe more). So no resistance &gt; (expose to environmental stress) &gt; reistance that was not found there before. Sounds suspiciously like evolution to me.

To find peer reviewed articles on the IMI resistant sunflowers, go to a crop science data base and search for Kassim Al-Khatib and/or Jerry Miller, who did some early work on them.

Simian

One example of the peer reviewed articles:

AN: IND 21971621
UD: 199903
AU: Al-Khatib,-K.; Baumgartner,-J.R.; Peterson,-D.E.; Currie,-R.S.
TI: Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus).
SO: Weed-sci. Lawrence, KS : Weed Science Society of America. July/Aug 1998. v. 46 (4) p. 403-407.
CN: DNAL 79.8-W41
PA: Other-US
PY: 1998
LA: English
CP: Kansas; USA
CO: WEESA6
IS: ISSN: 0043-1745
NT: Includes references.
PT: Article
SF: IND
DE: helianthus-annuus. biotypes-. herbicide-resistance. imazethapyr-. herbicide-resistant-weeds. acetolactate-synthase. enzyme-inhibitors. absorption-. translocation-. metabolism-. enzyme-activity. resistance-mechanisms. kansas-.
CC: F900; F600
AB: Resistance to imazethapyr was identified in a population of common sunflower that had been treated with imazethapyr for seven consecutive years. The imazethapyr-resistant biotype of common sunflower was approximately 170 times more resistant to imazethapyr than the susceptible biotype based on the rate required for 25% control. Resistance was due to altered acetolactate synthase (ALS) that is less sensitive to imazethapyr. The imazethapyr concentration required to inhibit in vitro ALS activity by 25% was 210-fold higher in the resistant biotype than in the susceptible biotype. Differences in absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazethapyr in common sunflower biotypes were not sufficient to explain the resistance to imazethapyr.
XAU: Kansas State University, Manhattan.

scigirl

Hey Pop_Quiz,

I don't have an answer to your question, but I want to say 'hello' - yay another Denverite!

Feel free to introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">here</a> if you like.

scigirl

Camaban

I think it's more "Who in their right mind would make the waste disposal tubes a recreational area?"

Unless God is German.......

"Mum... If you were ever in a German shaizza video.... you'd tell me, right?"

"Sure, hun"

- Cartman asking his mother about what he found on the internet.