Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 06:11 PM

DNAunion: Still working through my backlog.

Quote:

Oolon: Now, a chimpanzee heart may not have faired any better. But with an understanding of the FACT of evolution, it would have been a better choice at least. So (provided one thinks xenotransplantation is a good idea in the first place), without understanding evolution, a stupid mistake was made.

DNAunion: Aren't you overstepping the bounds of reason?

You yourself say that even if the "evolutionist's pick" - a chimpanzee heart - had been used you/we still don't know if the baby would have done any better. Is it reasonable then to claim that a stupid mistake was made?

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 06:40 PM

Quote:

DNAunion: Let's see... If I bring my dog into the vet because it has heart worms, does the vet HAVE TO KNOW what the evolutionary history of the worms was in order to sucessfully treat my dog?

(snip)

How will having an in-depth knowledge of evolutionary theory alter the way these professionals treat me (or my pet) or the quality of care I (or my pet) will receive?

Quote:

MrDarwin: It will alter it greatly.

DNAunion: Unless you have a better argument than what you present to back it up, I'd say that is more of a personal - and biased - opinion.

Quote:

MrDarwin: Morphological, physiological, and biochemical similarities and differences can be predicted based on known evolutionary relationships.

DNAunion: Morphological similarities and differences can be seen with the naked eye (or studied using other empirical means): no need for evolutionary theory. Physiological and biochemical similarities and differences can be studied using empirical methods, or can be predicted from similarities and differences in morphology.

Quote:

MrDarwin: A veterinary student will often end up treating any number of animals (not just dogs and cats). And knowing how to treat an animal often depends on knowing how to treat a closely related animal--in other words, it requires an understanding of animal relationships.

DNAunion: Which were known about before Darwin.

You do know that the study of animal relationships and the classification of animals based on those inferred relationships occurred before Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was published, right?

Quote:

MrDarwin: Horses and cows are not the same thing.

DNAunion: Known before Darwin.

Quote:

MrDarwin: Sheep and goats are more similar in their anatomy and physiology than either is to a dog.

DNAunion: I think most anyone familiar with the three animals, whether he/she were a YEC or an evolutionist, would conclude that.

Even if not, the degree of anatomical similarity between the three could be determined by empirical means. From that, the degree of physiological similarity could be predicted.

Quote:

MrDarwin: You do not treat an iguana (reptile) like a hamster (mammal).

DNAunion: For those cases where that is true (a broken leg bone might be treated the same way in both), I don't see where it would take evolutionary theory for us to know that.

Quote:

MrDarwin: Would a ferret, a cat, a dog, and a pet skunk all have the same diagnosis for similar symptoms, or all require exactly the same treatment?

DNAunion: Sorry, I can’t answer that question and be sure I am right, even though I know evolutionary theory.

Quote:

MrDarwin: Are they all susceptible to the same diseases, or to the same degree?

DNAunion: Those have been - or at least could be - determined by empirical means.

Quote:

MrDarwin: Would one treat a dolphin as a fish or as a mammal?

DNAunion: That dolphins are mammals is determinable by studying their anatomy.

Quote:

MrDarwin: If a mammal, how would one choose which other mammal species might give the best insights to treating it?

DNAunion: Probably by choosing one that is morphologically similar to it. For example, between a manatee and a buffalo, I’d go with the manatee.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

DNAunion: 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?

Quote:

MrDarwin: 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?

DNAunion: Gee, so it takes evolutionary theory to see that humans are anatomically more similar to other mammals than to squids?!?!?!?!

Quote:

MrDarwin: 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.

DNAunion: Just had to tack the last two words on there…changing a perfectly valid statement that everyone would agree with into one expressing an opinion.

You have yet to present a convincing case for doctors HAVING to know WHY the anatomy and physiology of different eyes are similar or different (oh, and as a side note, I didn’t think science was supposed to answer the "whys", just the "hows" .)

Quote:

MrDarwin: 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).

DNAunion: All of which could be determined by direct observation of actual sheep, human, and monkey eyes; without reference to evolutionary theory.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

MrDarwin: 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?

DNAunion: Gee, I guess that the only possible way to do that would be to go out in the wild and find a population of skunks, get others involved to speedly decode the skunk genome, determine the frequencies of the alleles - in that one population - that code for any traits my intervention might affect, jot down the results; visit the population after the next generation has appeared and repeat the process; continue doing this for several generations until I can see the changes in allelic frequencies occuring in the population. Ooops, took too long: my patient has died!

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

rbochnermd:
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.

DNAunion: Sounds like a nice phiolosophy. Now can you back it up with convincing examples?

Quote:

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

DNAunion: Is that supposed to be a jab?

If it is, please note that the eminent evolutionist Dr. Scott L. Page, Ph.D., also posted at the same Yahoo board for quite some time.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Baloo: But, DNA, based on their educational difference alone, who would you trust to more accurately translate a discourse between the leaders of Germany and France? Jack or Jill?

DNAunion: Well, let's see.

Jill didn't spend her time learning irrelevant stuff and - keeping this analogy meaningful - instead focussed extensively on exactly what her job required. Jack, on the other hand, would probably flub the translation here, there, and everywhere, since he apparently stopped studying the actual "mechanics" of the languages in favor of learning the history of the nations that speak those languages. So I'd give the technical advantage to Jill.

But if there was a passage that required interpretation that relied upon historical context, Jack would have the advantage.

But does this analogy work that well? Jack has the advantage only when what is before him is not what it seems. For a doctor looking at a retina, it is exactly what it seems. Wouldn't Dr. Jill have an advantage in medicine?

In fact, I'd hate to think the doctor who is working on my retina had spent the last several years learning evolutionary theory instead of keeping up with developments in his field and making sure he knew his stuff frontward and backward. I'd much prefer to have a Dr. Jill who was always devoting herself to the relevant matters and making sure she knew them inside and out.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

The Lone Ranger: A colleague of mine who is trained as a biologist but has worked in the field of medical research tells me that when she used to give lectures to physicians regarding antibiotic resistance in disease organisms. A great many of these physicians told her that they simply couldn’t understand why their antibiotics so quickly became useless. (Even worse -- many of them didn’t know that antibiotics are useless against a viral infection, or why!)

DNAunion: Aha! So the more troubling problem was that they didn't know a biological fact that is not founded upon evolutionary theory. Shouldn't you really be worried about - and complaining about -physicians not knowing that antibiotics are useless against viral infections? Once they learn the very relevant stuff like that, then we can go ahead and teach them the less relevant stuff like evolutionary theory.

Ah, wouldn't a Dr. Jill be a blessing!!!!

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Typhon:
Is DNAunion just a troll? He seems both irascible and incoherent. I've noticed that he/she pops in on other threads like a spring-driven rabbit, and tends to repeat itself if posters don't refute its strange arguments instantly.

DNAunion: Moderators...Do Typhon's negative statements aimed at me specifically count as a personal attack? Do Typhon's personal insults towards another poster count a his being a jerk, despite board rules?

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Typhon:
I would not want my pet let alone myself, operated on or diagnosed by someone who either misunderstood or never learned one of the cornerstones of all biological science: evolution. If they didn't learn this, who knows what other key science fundamentals they might be lacking, perhaps they never learned anything about the germ theory of disease or they still think medicine is all about the right balance of bodily humors.

DNAunion: Is your guiding philosophy of debate, "If you can't be them honestly with sound logic, try beating them with asinine and gross exageration disquised as logic!"?

DNAunion · 04-17-2002, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Typhon: I would not want my pet [sic] let alone myself, operated on or diagnosed by someone who either misunderstood or never learned one of the cornerstones of all biological science: evolution. If they [sic] didn't learn this, who knows what other key science fundamentals they [sic] might be lacking, perhaps they [sic] never learned anything about the germ theory of disease or they [sic] still think medicine is all about the right balance of bodily humors.

DNAunion: I would not want my pet, let alone myself, operated on or diagnosed by someone who knew full well what evolutionary theory implies. Evolution is all about natural selection, and as Darwin himself said, natural selection is "survival of the fittest". So if I take my pet to a vet who is trained in evolutionary theory and he/she discovers the dog has a disease, the vet would know that my pet is less fit than other dogs AND THEREFORE DOES NOT DESERVE TO LIVE! Forget about my taking my son who has eye problems to a doctor schooled in evolutionary theory: the doctor would likely recommend sterilization or execution. Yes, the autrocities of eugenics is the natural outcome of evolutionary theory in the hands of doctors.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.